Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

KING'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS).

THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Major Sir George Hennessy) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:

"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament."

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Barnsley Corporation (Water) Bill,

Birmingham Extension Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Bradford Corporation Bill,

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Bristol Water Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Buxton Corporation Bill,

To be read a Second rime To-morrow.

Chelsea Borough Council (Superannuation and Pensions) Bill,

Chepping Wycombe Corporation Bill,

Colchester Corporation Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

County of London Electric Supply Company Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Covent Garden Market Bill,

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Derwent Valley Water Board Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

East Anglian Electricity Bill,

Farnham Gas and Electricity Bill,

Frimley and Farnborough District Water Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bill.

Great Western Railway Bill,

Greenock Burgh Extension, etc., Bill,

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Grimsby Corporation Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Leeds Corporation Bill,

London County Council (General Powers) Bill,

London, Midland and Scottish Railway Bill,

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Manchester Corporation Bill,

Metropolitan Water Board Bill,

Nar Valley Drainage Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill,

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Reading Gas Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Smethwick Corporation Bill,

Southern Railway Bill,

Southern Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill,

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Stoke-on-Trent Corporation (Gas) Bill, Swansea Corporation Bill,

The Matlocks Urban District Council Bill,

Torquay Corporation Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

War Risks Associations (Distribution of Reserve Funds) Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

West Bridgford Urban District Council Bill,

West Bromwich Corporation Bill,

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Westgate and Birchington Water Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — NICARAGUA.

Viscount SANDON: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Minister accredited to the Government of Nicaragua has been in Managua during the recent crisis; whether he is there now; whether it is the Government policy that a Minister accredited to more than one Government should, when possible, visit that country which is involved in a crisis during its continuance; and whether the Government of the United States gave a guarantee to provide, if necessary, naval or military defence for British interests?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. His Majesty's Minister is, of course, in touch with His Majesty's Chargé d'Affairs at Managua, and would no doubt proceed to Managua if circumstances, in their joint opinion, made it advisable. In regard to the third part of the question, it is difficult to lay down any definite rule, and His Majesty's Government must be free to he guided by the particular circumstances of each case as it arises. As regards the last part of the question, the United States Government have promised to extend to British subjects the same measures of protection that they may afford to United States citizens.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

REGISTRATION OF TREATIES.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will specify the agreements, treaties, and pacts concluded between European nations (other than Russia) which have not yet been registered and deposited with the League of Nations?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which he received on the 8th December, in answer to a similar question.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in that reply there was no information, but only an
expression of a pious hope? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the House some more definite in formation than a hope that the law is being complied with?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot make a statement as to all the engagements of other Powers.

DISARMAMENT.

Viscount SANDON: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the League of Nations disarmament conference will discuss all questions of limitation of armaments before negotiations are entered into independently by the Government with any foreign Powers?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I presume that my Noble Friend's question arises out of the communication received last Thursday from the Government of the United States. I am unable at present to make any statement on the subject.

Viscount SANDON: Is it not a question as to whether we have faith in the League of Nations or not?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have said that I am at present unable to make any statement on the subject, and I must adhere to that answer.

Mr. DALTON: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have yet decided what concrete proposals for disarmament it will lay before the forthcoming Disarmament Conference on behalf of Great Britain?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The time has not yet come for a final decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.,

FOREIGN OFFICE (FAR EASTERN DEPARTMENT).

Colonel ENGLAND: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many members of the Far Eastern Department of the Foreign Office have any personal knowledge of China; and whether he is encouraging the policy already adopted by one Government Department of enabling its chief members to visit those parts of the. world with the affairs of which they are more especially connected in their work in London?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Three members of the present staff of the Far Eastern Department. of the Foreign Office have personal knowledge of China, two being members of the China Consular Service with an expert knowledge of the country, extending over, I believe, 29 years' and 20 years' residence in that country. As regards the second part of the question, the hon. and gallant Member is perhaps not aware that the posts filled by Foreign Office officials in London and members of the Diplomatic Service abroad are interchangeable. The service of His Majesty's present Minister at Peking, to take only one example, combines two periods of service in the Far East, with service both in junior and senior posts at the Foreign Office.

Mr. BECKETT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in regard to the members of the Chinese Consular Service in London to whom he refers, how long they have been back from China, and whether they have experience of the present China?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I must have notice of a question as to exactly how long they have been back here.

CLERICAL ACCOMMODATION (HEATING ARRANGEMENTS).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 52.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether there is any standard of temperature fixed for rooms used by clerical workers in Government offices; and whether such rooms are provided with thermometers or what steps are taken to ensure that the temperature maintained is adequate for the health of the workers?

Captain HACKING: The varying nature of the accommodation occupied by Government clerical staffs and the variable climatic conditions are such that it is impracticable to fix a rigid standard of temperature; thermometers are not supplied; heating apparatus or fires which are considered to be sufficient to maintain a temperature adequate for the health of the occupants are provided, and generally prove to be reasonably adequate.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is it not a fact that the Government insist that factories and
workshops should be adequately heated, and if so, why not Government offices?

Captain HACKING: Because they are not included in the Workshops Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS AND VISAS.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can inform the House as to whether the French Government is contemplating any alteration in their visa system?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received a note from the French Ambassador stating that the French Government has decided to maintain the existing arrangements, under which British subjects are not required to obtain a French visa as a preliminary to entering France.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an invitation has been received at any time from the United States of America Government for the abolition of visas on passports for American citizens travelling to the United Kingdom and British citizens visiting the United States of America; if so, what reply was made by His Majesty's Government; and what are the reasons for our retaining the visa for America?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; the hon. and gallant Member will find the correspondence in Command Paper 2746.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read the correspondence, he will find a full answer.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it rather extraordinary that we should have abolished the visa for France, but should keep it on for America?

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability, after consultation with other European countries, of doubling the visa fees for America, such amount to be devoted towards the repayment of the American debt?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The position of the Government was set out in the correspondence which was published as a Command Paper, and to that I have nothing to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

SHANGHAI DEFENCE FORCE.

Miss LAWRENCE: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a telegram has been received by him from the Shanghai Bankers' Association and the Shanghai District Chamber of Commerce relative to the despatch of troops, and asking for their withdrawal?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I have received a telegram bearing the names of various Chinese public bodies in Shanghai, including the two mentioned.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has had any other communication from representatives of Europeans in Shanghai, advising this course of action?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think not. I do not like answering these questions without notice lest I mislead.

Miss LAWRENCE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the terms of the communications and societies which have signed?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member had put that question on the Paper, I should certainly have given her the terms, but as she did not ask for them, I have not brought them with me.

Mr. R. SMITH: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider using Singapore as well as Hong-Kong as a place of diversion for the extra military forces which have been despatched to China?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I can make no further statement as to troop movements at present.

Mr. MOSLEY: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under what treaty rights are British troops to be landed on Chinese soil?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The right of a State to protect the lives of its nationals abroad is not dependent on any Treaty provision.

Mr. MOSLEY: Are we to understand that British forces will be landed in violation of international law, and that an Act of war will then have been committed?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. Certainly not.

Mr. MOSLEY: If there is no Treaty right, will not the landing of these troops be a violation of international law?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Mr. MOSLEY: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether permission has been granted by the authorities controlling the international settlement at Shanghai for the landing in the settlement of all or my of the British troops which have been despatched to that city?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am advised that the permission of the municipal council is not necessary, and it has not been requested.

SHANGHAI MUNL.TIPAL COUNCIL.

Mr. R. SMITH: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names and the nationality of the members of the Shanghai Municipal Council?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The members of the Municipal Council of the International Settlement at Shanghai, elected in March last, are:

Mr. S. Sakuragi (Japanese).
Mr. S. Fessenden (American) (Chairman).
Mr. H. R. Roe (British).
Mr. V. G. Lyman (American).
Mr. A. D. Bell (British).
Mr. E. B. Macnaghten (British).
Mr. J. J. Paterson (British).
Mr. P. W. Massey (British).
Mr. W. R. B. McBain (British).

Mr. R. SMITH: Is not the fact that so many representatives on the council are British a sufficient explanation of the way in which Chinese opinion concentrates against the British?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think not.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is using an argument, not asking a question.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: A very mischievous argument.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Mr. R. SMITH: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in regard to the Chinese situation, he will now consider the desirability of applying Article 11 of the Covenant, so that the League can take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations?

Mr. DALTON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of Mr. Chu at Geneva that he is authorised to speak for both the Pekin and the Canton Governments; and whether, in view of this statement, he will now bring the question of Anglo-Chinese relations before the Council of the League?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I will answer these questions together. I have seen in the Press the statement to which the hon Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) refers. His Majesty's Government have already made a full statement to the League of Nations of their policy in China, in a letter to the Secretary-General, dated the 8th February, which was published in the Press in this country on the 12th February. The last paragraph of that letter reads:
His Majesty's Government have felt it right to make this communication to the League of Nations so that its members may have before them a full statement of His Majesty's Government's policy in China and may understand how completely it is in accord with both the letter and the spirit of the Covenant. His Majesty's Government deeply regret, that there does not appear to be any way in which the assistance of the League in the settlement of the difficulties in China can be sought at present. But, if any opportunity should arise of invoking the good offices of the League, His Majesty's Government will gladly avail themselves of it.
To the view there expressed His Majesty's Government have nothing to add.

Mr. DALTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman been able to get into touch with Mr. Chu with regard to the pospossibility of a new situation having arisen?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I have not endeavoured to communicate with him or be with me.

Mr. MOSLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that a new situation has arisen now that there is a
Chinese representative at Geneva able to speak for the whole of China?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware that he is able to speak for any Government having authority throughout China.

Mr. MOSLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiry into this claim?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I did make inquiries on one occasion, which was after his extraordinary outburst last September, when he attacked the British Government, and was replied to by my Noble Friend Lord Cecil. I was then informed by the Government at Peking that he was not acting upon instructions.

Mr. J. HUDSON: Is it not the case that when he was said to have made an extraordinary outburst he was attempt-in o- to make a statement with regard to Wanhsien which the Government has since made no attempt to correct by issuing a White Paper?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: My Noble Friend Lord Cecil said all that was necessary at the moment with regard to the intervention of Mr. Chu, which was in defiance of the rules of the society, as was pointed out by the President of the Assembly at the next sitting.

TREATY PORTS AND CONCESSIONS.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which Powers are still interested with our-selves in Chinese treaty ports and concessions; acid which Powers have relinquished such privileges?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As the Treaty Ports of China are the only places in the country where foreign merchants can reside and establish businesses, all nations having commercial relations with China are alike interested in them. Concessions exist at only a few of the Treaty Ports. The Powers, other than Great Britain, which hold such Concessions, are Japan, France, Italy and Belgium, the last named of whom has recently announced her readiness to return to China her undeveloped concession at Tientsin. The Austrian, Russian and German concessions at Tientsin and the Russian and German concession at Hankow have reverted to Chinese control.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Are negotiations still in progress with Mr. Chen?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There has been some delay, not for the first time, in the transmission of telegrams from Mr. O'Malley at Hankow, and I do not yet know what is the position, but I understand from statements that I have read in the Press that Mr. O'Malley felt it necessary to refer home for further instructions. I have had some telegrams from him, but they all relate to a telegram which only came this morning, and is not yet deciphered.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot he use the wireless on our ships at Hankow?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think wireless has been used.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Are there any limitations of the rights of Chinamen in this country corresponding to the limitation of the rights of Britons in China?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Mr. R. SMITH: In the case of those Powers which have either voluntarily or otherwise given up their privilege in China, is there any evidence that their trade has suffered in China or that they have not been deal with fairly in submitting cases in the Chinese courts?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have heard conflicting reports.

ITALIAN NAVAL FORCES.

Mr. MOSLEY: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Italy has despatched any forces to Shanghai?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. Italy has at present one cruiser at Shanghai and two gunboats on the Yangtse. An Italian destroyer is due to arrive shortly to reinforce this squadron, and I understand that further reinforcements will be despatched if necessary.

Mr. MOSLEY: Were these forces despatched at the request of His Majesty's Government?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Mr. MOSLEY: Was the despatch of these forces discussed in any way by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his recent visit to Rome?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think I heard that question answered some time ago.

BRITISH SUBJECTS.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has yet taken any steps for the protection of British subjects in China not residing in Shanghai?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: British warships are, and have been for some time, stationed at all important centres in the Yangtse basin, where British subjects are resident, from Chungking down to Shanghai. British warships are also stationed at Canton, and visit the ports on the coast when occasion arises. British missionaries residing in the interior, in Provinces where disturbances are to be apprehended, have been advised to withdraw to the Treaty Ports, and but a few of them have acted on this advice.

NAVAL RATINGS (COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 26.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any statement to make as to the attempts recently made to distribute Communist propaganda among naval ratings about to embark for the Far East; and whether any action has been taken against the persons concerned?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): I have been asked to reply to this question, and would refer to the answer which the Home Secretary gave yesterday to similar questions by the hon. and gallant Members for Everton (Colonel Woodcock) and for Stirling and Clackmannan Western (Commander Fanshawe).

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE (POLICE MISSION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied with the progress of the British Police Mission in Greece; whether the restrictions put upon the mission by General Pangalos have now
been removed; and, in particular, whether these police are now replaced in the charge of Criminal Investigation Department work and operating in all the cities of Greece?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is, of course, aware that the Police Mission are the servants of the Greek Government, and that therefore His Majesty's Government do not receive regular reports of their activities. I believe, however, that it is commonly recognised in Greece that Sir Frederick Halliday and the mission have admirably discharged the duties entrusted to them.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer to the second part of the question, as to whether the sphere of their operations has now been restored to what it was before General Pangalos imposed his restrictions?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No; I do not know.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can inquiries be made?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it is my business to inquire into these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — DODECANESE (MRS. TILIAKOS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the assault on Mrs. Tiliakos, a British subject, by Italians in the Dodecanese, whether he has received any report from the British Consul at Rhodes, who went to the island of Kalymnos to make inquiries?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Reports have been received both from His Majesty's Vice-Consul at Rhodes and from His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome. It would not appear that there was any assault on Mrs. Tiliakos, and what did happen seems to have been somewhat exaggerated. I understand that Mrs. Tiliakos has since addressed a declaration to the Governor of Rhodes retracting most of her complaints, and that the Italian naval ratings concerned in the disturbance which did take place have been suitably dealt with by the Italian authorities.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the British Consul at Rhodes did actually visit the island, and see Mrs. Tiliakos?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Not without notice.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I will give notice.

Commander BELLAIRS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the lady will be compensated for any damage done to her property?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen a letter from the lady to her husband, which explains that immediately after the incident the officers from the Italian ship, of which sailors had been engaged in the disturbance, called upon her, apologised for their action, and offered compensation, which she evidently refused as degrading.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND.

Sir FRANK MEYER: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has taken, or intends to take, any action as a result of representations made to him by the Polish Government with reference to statements published by a recent political delegation to Poland?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Polish Government have made no suggestion that I should take any action in this matter, for which His Majesty's Government are in no way responsible.

Sir F. MEYER: Is it not a fact that members of this delegation obtained credentials as members of the official Labour party, and when they got to Poland they declared that they were members of the International Class War?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now trying to put in the form of a question something that was not allowed.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the two ex-Ministers who gave letters of introduction and sponsored these Members of the Labour party, and whether—

Mr. SPEAKER: That again is a matter which does not concern this House.

Mr. BECKETT: In view of the fact that in one organ of the Press there have
been rather serious charges of breach of faith against the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Shepherd) and myself, which appear to be substantiated in these questions, would you allow us to make a brief personal statement after Questions?

Mr. SPEAKER: If there be any statement affecting the honour of two hon. Members made in the House, of course they would be entitled to make an explanation, but for statements in the Press they have a different remedy.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: They can bring an action against the Press to vindicate themselves.

Mr. BECKETT: I would point out that the allegation has been made in this House that the hon. Member for Darlington and myself made misrepresentations to the Polish Embassy. I would very much like to make a short personal statement, with your permission.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that according to our Rules a personal explanation can only refer to a matter which has arisen in the House. I was careful to disallow a question which conveyed even a hidden allegation against the hon. Member, and the answer which has just been given confirms the wisdom of that step.

Mr. BECKETT: The suggestion was distinctly made by the hon. Member who spoke from the other side of the House that misrepresentation had been made by us to the Polish Embassy; and whether that statement is made in the Press or is made by an hon. Member of this House, it is a deliberate lie, which they know to be a lie.

Sir F. HALL: Why not take your action against the Press?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

PERSONNEL.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the number of the Admiralty headquarter's staff, and the numbers serving under the Admiralty command in February, 1914, and the corresponding figures for the present time?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I regret that figures for 1st February, 1914, are not available. The figures for 1st August, 1914, are 2,072 and 215,331 re spectively; and for 1st January, 1927, 3,193 and 174,473. I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the details in the OFFICIAL PEPORT.

The details are as follow:

The total civilian and naval staff (including messengers are charwomen) employed at the Admiralty on the 1st August, 1914, numbered 2,072. On the 1st January, 1927, the number was 3,193.

The personnel of the Navy on the 15th July, 1914, numbered 146,047. On the 15th January, 1927, the number was 101,434.

The total civilian staff employed in all Admiralty establishments at home and abroad, including Admiralty headquarters, numbered 71,204 on the 1st August, 1914, and on the 1st January, 1927, the number was 75,880. These figures comprise the following:




1st August, 1914.
1st January, 1927.


Non-Industrial Staff:





Headquarters
…
1,920
2,841


Elsewhere
…
3,586
5,930


Industrial Staff:

65.698
67,109


Total
…
71,204
75,880

If the hon. Member will refer to the reply of the 18th November, 1925, to the hon. Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. Bennett) [OFFICIAL REPORT, cols. 358–364] he will find a detailed explanation why the number of civilian staff cannot be proportionately related with those of naval personnel.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to ask for an increase of the personnel of the Royal Navy, in view of the international conditions?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): I trust that the international conditions referred to by the hon. Member will not be so prolonged as to make it necessary to ask for an increase.

ROYAL DOCKYARDS (DISCHARGES.)

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 24.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many men have been discharged from each of His Majesty's dockyards or establishments since January, 1926; how many men are under notice discharge in each place; whether it is contemplated making further discharges in the coming financial year; and, if so, whether the Admiralty has any idea of the number to be discharged?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give the -answer to the last part of the question, which does not involve any figures?

Lieut.-Colonel HEPLDLAM: I think I should prefer to leave it all to be circulated in the OFFICIAL, REPORT, if the hon. Member does not mind.

The reply is as follows:

The numbers or workpeople discharged from the Vote 8 Departments of the several Dockyards since 31st January, 1926, are:


Portsmouth
…
…
387


Devonport
…
…
289


Chatham
…
…
243


Sheerness
…
…
35


Rosyth
…
…
700


Pembroke Dock
…
…
444

The numbers under notice of discharge in the same Departments of the Dockyard are:


Portsmouth
…
…
…
7


Devonport
…
…
…
1


Rosyth
…
…
…
2

The further discharges contemplated, to be made between 26th March and 14th April next, are:


From Portsmouth
…
…
600


From Devonport
…
…
600


From Chatham
…
…
700


From Sheerness
…
…
100

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 30.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will consider permitting established men in His Majesty's dockyards to take a modified pension at the age of 55 and upwards should they so desire, and relieve the present congestion in the yards and the necessity of wholesale discharges?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I regret that the suggestion that established men in His Majesty's dockyards should be given the, option of retiring prematurely with modified pensions cannot be entertained.

Sir B. FALLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is already very considerable distress in His Majesty's dockyards; that in these dockyard areas there is practically no other work outside the dockyards, and that, therefore, a large number of men arc going to be thrown on the insurance?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I hope they will be able to find employment elsewhere. I regret very much that, owing to the necessity for economy, these discharges have to be made. Nobody regrets it more than I do, but I am glad to think that, owing to better prospects of trade at the present moment, there is more chance of employment in other yards than there was.

Major Sir GRANVILLE WHELER: In making these discharges, will consideration be given to the retention of those men who are house owners at Sheerness and other dockyard towns, and who, therefore, will find great difficulty in being able to get away to other employ-merit?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think that is already done, but if not, I certainly will take notice of what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, and remind the authorities of that point.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is it not a fact that exactly the procedure suggested in this question was followed when there were discharges from the Royal Navy, and that officers were allowed to take their pensions before they were due? Would it not be economy to adopt the same procedure here?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member is confusing the question between hired men and established men. If the hired men aye discharged, established men remain. Therefore, the only point of the question is to enable established men to go and hired men to stay.

CONSTRUCTION.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 25.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to utilise the money saved
in naval construction as a result of the strike during the current financial year for new construction during the coming year?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir. Money voted by this House to defray expenses coming in course of payment during the current financial year must, in so far as it is not so spent, revert to the Exchequer. The House will in due course be asked to vote fresh provision, for the naval services, including naval construction, in the year 1927.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In view of the unemployment in the dockyards arising out of the discharges made by the Government, could not some means be discovered of utilising this money which has already been voted?

Mr. HARRIS: Would the right hon. Gentleman at the same time consider the possibility of effecting economies?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is perfectly obvious, if the money has not been spent, it has been economised.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 29.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to President Coolidge's message to Congress of 10th February last, in which it is stated that a memorandum has been addressed to various Governments, including His Majesty's Government, suggesting a further conference for the purpose of limiting the building of war vessels not already limited by the Washington Treaty of 1921; and whether, in view of this and the postponement of cruiser-building in the United States, he proposes to cease work on further shipbuilding for the present and until the outcome of the proposed conference?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Prime Minister's reply of the 14th February to the hon. Members for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith) and South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) (OFFICIAL REPORT, Columns 552–3).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that. the reply—which I heard—does not deal at all with naval shipbuilding, with which the question is most concerned and will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of my question?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think if the hon. and gallant Member refers to the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will find that question was dealt with. The Prime Minister said the whole point was under consideration.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is the Foreign Office working in active consultation with the Admiralty on this question, and has the Admiralty made representations as to the connection between air armaments and naval armaments and the possibility of separating the two?

Mr. SPEAKER: There will be an early opportunity of debating that question on the Estimates.

STORES AND MATERIALS (FOREIGN PURCHASES).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 27.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the percentage value of all foodstuffs and of all other stores and materials of any kind purchased by his Department during the year 1926 and which were of foreign origin?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: My hon. Friend may rest assured that most of the foodstuffs and stores, etc., purchased from foreign countries are unobtainable in the British Empire. To give an exact percentage of stores so purchased would involve a greater amount of labour than would probably be considered justified by the circumstances. But I may say that the percentage value oz foreign foodstuffs bought in 1926 was between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent., whilst the corresponding percentage for all other stores and materials would be considerably less than 1 per cent. This latter figure excludes oil fuel (which must inevitably be largely of foreign production), and also excludes special purchases of foreign coal which were necessitated by the national coal stoppage.

DISABLEMENT PENSIONS (TUBERCULOSIS).

Sir PARK GOFF: 28.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of sailors discharged from the Navy in 1926 suffering from tuberculosis; and how many of those men were granted disablement pensions?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The number of men so discharged was 197.
Of these, six were found to be attributable to the conditions of service, and pensions on the attributable scale were awarded.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: If these seamen all pass the medical test prior to joining the naval forces, how does the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain the fact that only 3 per cent, of them have obtained pensions, and 97 per cent, have been refused?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Presumably all ratings are examined before joining the Service, but as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, complaints of this kind develop later on, and are therefore somewhat difficult to attribute to service. It is a matter which is exercising the earnest attention of the Board of Admiralty, who naturally are most anxious to see that all the men are satisfied as far as possible. If the hon. Member asks me to explain the particular reasons for a particular circumstance I am afraid I cannot satisfy him.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is there any appeal against these decisions?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: There is an appeal to the Board of Admiralty.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Have the Admiralty decided how many years a man must be in the Service before a disease is held to be attributable to service?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I think the hon. Member should give me notice of that question.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In view of these facts, will the Admiralty consider once again the necessity for establishing an appeal tribunal, before which the invalided person might appear, personally or through a representative.?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: As at present advised, the Admiralty consider that the Board is by far the best final appeal tribunal.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Has the applicant for a pension the right of personal appearenee at that Court, or appearance through a deputy or solicitor?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I think I should have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

RELIEF SCHEMES.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men employed on works instituted by local authorities and others under schemes sanctioned by the Unemployment Grants Committee; the total amount of expenditure involved; and the corresponding figures for a year ago?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): The number of men employed on the 29th January, 1927, on schemes assisted by the Unemployment Grants Committee was 14,510, as compared with 33,273 men employed on the 30th January, 1926. The total estimated cost of schemes approved by the Committee during the 12 months ended 31st January, 1927, was £6,355,979, as compared with £19,532,111 during the year ended 31st January, 1926.

Mr. THOMSON: In view of the great increase in the number of unemployed, is it not possible to increase the number of men employed on this class of work?

Mr. BETTERTON: That raises a question of policy, with which I cannot deal in answer to a question.

Mr. PALING: Is it the policy of the Department to reduce the sum of money for this purpose year by year, as has been done?

Mr. SPEAKER: The question does not raise the matter of policy.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of complaints being made that a. large number of persons are now being disqualified in Glasgow for not having a reasonable period of work during the past two years; if such refusal is authorised by any circular or letter issued either from his Department in London or Edinburgh, and, if so, will he state the nature of same; and if this circular or letter is applying in particular to the Glasgow Exchange?

Mr. BETTERTON: Representations with regard to these disallowances were made recently to the Divisional Controller by the Glasgow Trades and Labour Council. As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, this ground of disallowance is a statutory one. Explanatory directions are contained in L.E.C. Memoranda with which, I think, the hon. Member is familiar. No special instructions have been issued for Glasgow as to the considerations to be applied in determining these cases. I may mention, however, that as a result of a recent scrutiny of claims with large debit balances in Scotland generally, a certain number of cases were referred to Committees and disallowed by them.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at certain employment, exchanges in Glasgow procedure is being taken which is not uniform throughout the whole of the Glasgow area, and will he state why there is a difference between exchange and exchange?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, I was not aware of that, and if the hon. Gentleman will come and see me, or give me particulars, I will go into the matter.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that an inspector called at the Finnestoun Employment Exchange, Glasgow, and examined the papers of certain persons who had been passed for benefit by rota committees; that he afterwards decided to call the applicants before him and in certain cases stopped the decision of the rota committee from taking effect, and sent the cases back to he reheard; and that the committee again granted payment, but that benefit is not yet paid, and during interviews the inspector treated the applicants for benefit inconsiderately; if he has made inquiry; and what is the result of the same?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have made inquiry, and find that the usual periodical test of extended benefit claims was recently made at this exchange. What took place was substantially as stated in the question, except that I am assured that no claimant was treated inconsiderately.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries into the conditions in which an inspector has a right to stop payment at least on two occasions when the rota committee have decided to allow it? What statutory right has an inspector to over-rule a rota committee?

Mr. BETTERTON: The statutory right is the right in the Act of 1924, which imposes on the Minister himself the ultimate decision whether or not a case for extended benefit is to be allowed.

Mr. CONNOLLY: On account of the widespread interest in this matter, will the hon. Gentleman say what takes place after a committee twice allows benefit, and the area officer turns it down?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can I give notice that I intend to raise this question on the first opportunity on the Adjournment?

Mr. CONNOLLY: I would like an answer to my question.

Mr. SPEAKER: I would like to see the hon. Member's question in writing, because it does not deal with this specific case. It is evidently a general question.

TRAINING CENTRES.

Mr. CADOGAN: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour how many men have completed the full six months' course of training under the new scheme for young unemployed at Claydon, Birmingham, Brandon, and Wallsend-on-Tyne centres, respectively; how many have left before the end of their course in order to take up employment; how many are now in training; how many have been placed on farms overseas; and whether the establishment of any more of these training centres is contemplated?

Mr. BETTERTON: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the desired information.
The question of providing further training facilities is at present under consideration.

Following is the statement promised.:

Scheme of Training for Young Unemployed Men.—Statement Showing the Position on 9th February, 1927.


—
Claydon.
Birmingham.
Brandon.
Wallsend-on-Tyne.


(1)
Number of men who completed the full course. (In the case of men for overseas the course was not necessarily a full 6 months).
356
412
146
586


(2)
Number of men who left before the end of their course in order to take up employment.
9
667
—
106


(3)
Number of men in training
196
438
198
332


(4)
Number of men placed on farms overseas.
206
—
129
—

PAYMENT OF BENEFIT (WAITING).

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a large number of men have to stand in the public streets for a long period of time, often in inclement weather, in order to obtain their unemployment pay; and if, under these circumstances, he will consult the managers of Labour and Insurance Departments as to the possibility of adopting some method which will remove this hardship from the unemployed?

Mr. BETTERTON: A great deal of attention has been given to this point and, in general, by means of the timing system, the periods of waiting are reduced to a. minimum. From time to time, when such large numbers are being dealt with, cases of delay are almost unavoidable, particularly if there are sudden increases in the numbers attending, but I think I can say that, taken on the whole, such cases are rare. If my hon. Friend will let me have a note of any particular case he has in mind, I shall be glad to look into it.

Colonel DAY: Is the hon. Member aware that in the Walworth Road, at the Borough Exchange, the men have to wait an interminable time in the rain?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, I am not aware of that. As I have said, if the hon. Member or any hon. Member has any case of the kind arid will bring it to my notice, I will be happy to look into it.

JUVENILE CENTRES.

Mr. COVE: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of juvenile unemployment centres now in existence;
the number of authorities in whose areas they exist; and the average number of students attending per week?

Mr. BETTERTON: On 4th February, 91 juvenile unemployment centres were open in the areas of 34 local education authorities. The average weekly attendance was 6,966. In addition an average of 145 juveniles attend day continuation classes in Edinburgh as a condition of the receipt of unemployment benefit.

Mr. COVE: Is the number less during the last year? Has the tendency been to decrease?

Mr. BETTERTON: I could answer that question quite easily with notice, but I am afraid I cannot without.

INSURANCE (BLANESBURGH COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS).

Mr. HAYES: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Government proposes to embody all the recommendations of the Report of the Unemployment Insurance Committee in its Unemployment Insurance Bill; and when he proposes to introduce this Measure?

Mr. BETTERTON: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on Monday to the hon. Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. Buchanan). I cannot yet give a date for the introduction of the Unemployment Insurance Bill.

Mr. BOOTHBY: May I ask my hon. Friend whether, before any legislation is introduced, the Ministry will give special attention to the position of seasonal workers in certain classes of industry?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir. That point, of course, is dealt with in the Report itself. The whole Report will be considered by my right hon. Friend.

MINERS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 42.
asked the Minister of Labour how many mine workers were registered as unemployed on the last convenient date, and will he give the figures for the same date in 1925 and 1926?

Mr. BETTERTON: The number of persons classified as belonging to the coal-mining industry who were recorded as unemployed on 24th January, 1927, was 200,476. The corresponding figure for 25th January, 1926, was 125,669 and for 26th January, 1925, 100,061.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Have the hon. Gentleman's Department or the Government taken any steps to provide useful work for these 200,000 miners out of work?

Mr. BETTERTON: We are doing our best to provide for everybody out of work. That, of course, involves a statement of policy, and I cannot give an answer.

Mr. WILLAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House exactly what the Government have done to find these men work since the Eight Hours Act was passed?

BUILDING OPERATIVES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour how many bricklayers, plasterers, joiners and plumbers were unemployed at the latest convenient date; and the figures for the same date in 1926?

Mr. BETTERTON: On 24th January, 1927, there were 10,038 carpenters and joiners, 4,807 bricklayers, 874 plasterers, and 2,894 plumbers classified as belonging to the building industry recorded as unemployed in Great Britain. The corresponding figures for 25th January, 1926, were 7,525 carpenters and joiners, 2,953 bricklayers, 653 plasterers and 2,167 plumbers.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the increase in the number of skilled operatives out of work has any relation to the financial proposals of the Government?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, I think not. As far as I can judge, it is one of the repercussions of the coal stoppage.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a shortage of bricklayers and plasterers on the London County Council housing estates? Is his Department prepared to bear the expense of moving these men to where they are required?

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: There are bricklayers and bricklayers.

Mr. BETTERTON: I will certainly bring that before my right hon Friend, but I am not very hopeful that the Government can incur expense in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — WASHINGTON CONVENTION (HOURS OF WORK).

Viscount SANDON: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the German Government's pronouncement as to the 8-hour day; and whether, if the other countries concerned are now in line on this matter, legislation can now be introduced?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have seen reports in the Press of the declaration to which the Noble Lord refers. I am not yet in a position to announce the intentions of the Government in this matter.

Viscount SANDON: Can the hon. Gentleman say what are the other countries primarily concerned in this matter, and whether any of them have made any decisive declaration, such as have been made by France and Germany?

Mr. BETTERTON: I think there is a later question on this very point.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from the hon. Member's reply that the Government have not yet made up their minds whether they will ratify the Eight-Hour Convention?

Mr. BETTERTON: No. What the hon. Member is to gather from my reply is that the matter is now under the close consideration of the Government.

Mr. TAYLOR: May I ask if shop assistants will be included?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's next question raises that point.

Mr. TAYLOR: 39 and 38.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether it is the intention of the Government to include shop assistants and commercial employés in any forthcoming legislation for the ratification of a 48-hour working week, in accordance with the agreement reached between the Labour Ministers of Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Belgium at the Conference held in London last year to consider the interpretation of the Washington Convention;
(2) what steps, if any, have been taken, since the Conference held in London last year, in Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Belgium to ratify the 48-hour week, in accordance with the terms of the Washington Convention and the agreement as to the interpretation arrived at last year between the Labour Ministers of the countries above named?

Mr. BETTERTON: Since the London Conference Belgium has ratified the Washington Hours Convention. In France a Bill enabling the Government to ratify conditionally on ratification by Germany and Great Britain has been passed by the Senate. In Germany the Government has issued a Workers' Protection Bill, certain clauses of which are designed to give effect to the provisions of the Convention. Italy had already ratified the Convention subject to its being ratified by Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain and Switzerland. I am not yet in a position to state the intentions of His Majesty's Government in this matter. As regards shop assistants and commercial employés, I would remind the hon. Member that the Washington Hours Convention applies only to industrial undertakings.

Mr. TAYLOR: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether it will be possible for the Government to include shop assistants in any general legislation, apart altogether from the actual terms of the Convention?

Mr. BETTERTON: I take it that any Government can include any class of persons in any legislation, but what I tried to make clear in my answer was that the Washington Hours Convention does not include the class of person to whom the hon. Member refers.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Are the. Government prepared to consider similar provi-
sional ratification on the lines of France and Germany?

Mr. BETTERTON: Obviously, I cannot deal with that point in reply to a question. I understand that the whole of this matter is being discussed at a very early date, when, no doubt, the hon. Member will raise that and other matters.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the hon. Member bear in mind that the other countries are waiting on England, and that it is far more important from the point of view of England than of the others that this should be ratified?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is taking the form of a debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the total sum which has been expended on aeronautical research since the beginning of 1919?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The total sum expended on scientific research and technical development, as detailed in Appendix II of the current Air Estimates, from the let April, 1919, to 31st March, 1927, including expenditure still to be incurred this financial year, is approximately £8,500,000.

AIRCRAFT (RE-FUELLING).

Colonel DAY: 46.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps have been taken with a view to ascertaining how far it is possible for aeroplanes to re-fuel in mid-air when travelling at normal speed; and what steps have been taken with a view to the creation of aerial petrol pumps?

Sir P. SASSOON: As regards the first part of the question, the practicability of re-fuelling aircraft in mid-air was demonstrated by successful tests at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, some years ago. As regards the second part, I am not quite clear what the hon. and gallant Member has in mind; if he means a system of aviation spirit pumps
similar to the wayside petrol pumps for motor cars, I do not think the need for it has yet arisen.

Colonel DAY: Can the hon. baronet say whether steps have been taking place to fill one aeroplane from another while it is travelling?

Sir P. SASSOON: I said so in the first part of my answer.

Colonel DAY: Are the experiments still going on?

Sir P. SASSOON: The experiments were successful.

Low FLYING.

Brigadier-General WARNER: 47.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will issue orders to the aerodromes in the vicinity of Biggleswade that pilots are not to perform low flying over any portion of that town?

Sir P. SASSOON: Orders are already in force on the subject of low flying over towns or thickly inhabited districts, and, in particular, forbidding pilots to fly or manœuvre their machines in any manner likely to cause accident or annoyance to any person or persons or damage to live stock or property. The regulations, of which I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy, appear to me to provide sufficiently for the prevention of all flying of a kind to which reasonable exception could be taken. No further orders on the subject are considered to be necessary, but if persons who suffer annoyance from low flying will note the number of the aeroplane and will notify it, with the date, hour and locality of the occurrence, to the Secretary, Air Ministry, full inquiry will be made and action taken in the event of any breach of the regulations.

Brigadier-General WARNER: Will the hon. Baronet be good enough to include in the Regulations all the cases during the last six months in which disciplinary action has been taken for low flying and stunt flying?

Sir P. SASSOON: I will consider that point.

HENDON AERODROME,

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 48.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the price paid for Hendon Aerodrome and the land, and what is the cost per acre?

Sir P. SASSOON: The precise cost cannot yet be given since it will depend upon the prices realised for the surplus property included in the purchase, but not required by the Air Ministry. It is estimated, however, that I he final cost of the 300 acres, together with buildings valued at £100,000, will work out at approximately £300,000.

Sir F. WISE: Has any of the outlying part of the land been sold?

Sir P. SASSOON: The negotiations are still going on.

AIRSHIP GAS CONTAINERS.

Sir F. HALL: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, seeing that the gas containers for the new airship R 100 are being made in Germany, he will say whether the material for this purpose can, at the present time, be manufactured in this country; and, if not, what is proposed to be done to remedy this state of things?

Sir P. SASSOON: The Air Ministry have been informed by a firm in this country that the material can now be manufactured through their agency in Great Britain, and this statement is under investigation. Research is being carried out with a view to providing a synthetic substitute for skin-covered fabric.

Sir F. HALL: Do I understand then that the gas containers are not being made in Germany but are being manufactured in this country?

Sir P. SASSOON: The firm to which I referred are at present undertaking experiments for manufacture.

Sir F. HALL: Do I understand we are left at the mercy of foreign countries for the manufacture of one of the most vital parts of the airships of this country?

Sir P. SASSOON: My answer expressed the hope that it world not be so.

Sir F. HALL: There is no satisfaction in that.

Oral Answers to Questions — CITY OF LONDON COURTS (FEES).

Mr. W. BAKER: 50.
asked the Attorney-General the total amount of fees received in the City of London Courts for the last complete year as compared with the expenses which were incurred?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): The fees received in the year ending 31st March, 1926, were £34,534 7s. 7d., which, with other items of revenue, made a total revenue of £35,103 19s. 9d. The expenses were £28,477 15s. 5d.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUDGES' MARSHALS.

Mr. W. BAKER: 51.
asked the Attorney-General the annual cost to the Treasury of the provision of Judges' marshals; and whether the Lord Chancellor will reconsider the necessity of this annual expenditure?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The cost to the Treasury of the provision of Judges' marshals for the financial year 1925–6 was £3,135 6s. The Lord Chancellor sees no reason for any alteration of this arrangement.

Mr. BAKER: Is it not a fact that marshals are chosen quite frequently on the basis of boon companionship, and, in these circumstances, is it justifiable that the Treasury should pay this money?

Mr. BLUNDELL: May I ask whether boon companionship of a Judge is not a quite respectable occupation?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In answer to the first supplementary question, the marshal is nominated by the Judge with whom he is in close association. I have not inquired of His Majesty's Judges what are the motives which influence them in making the appointment. With regard to the second question, I cannot say I have any personal reason to believe that the occupation is anything but respectable.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND INDUSTRY.

Mr. COVE: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour if he intends to introduce legislation during this Session of Parliament embodying any of the proposals of the Report of the Malcolm Committee on Education and Industry?

Mr. BETTERTON: My right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Education and the Minister of Labour are considering the Report. I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — SELECT COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: 45.
asked the Prime Minister when the Select Committee on Estimates will be set up; and whether he will consider the desirability of setting up two or more such committees to deal respectively with Estimates for the fighting services, Civil Service, and other groups of Estimates in order to ensure adequate scrutiny before the Estimates are considered in Committee of Supply?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The necessary Motion to set up the Estimates Committee will be moved as soon as arrangements can be made. As regards the second part of the question, I think it preferable to follow the procedure adopted last year. The Select Committee should it so desire can, of course, arrange to appoint sub-committees.

Oral Answers to Questions — VACCINATION PAYMENTS (KEIGHLEY UNION).

Mr. LUNN: 53.
asked the Minister of Health what are the salaries paid to the public vaccinators in the Keighley union area?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The public vaccinators in this union are not paid by salary, but by fees. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of these fees.

Following is the statement promised:

Fees paid to public vaccinators in the Keighley Union:

(1) A fee of one shilling in respect of every child whose birth is registered in the district of the public vaccinator, or who is resident in that district and whose birth has been registered in some other district or has not been registered at all, except in the case of a child who has died or has removed from the district before attaining the age of four months, or who has been duly certified to be successfully vaccinated otherwise than by the public vaccinator or to be insusceptible of vaccination or to have had smallpox, before reaching that age, or with regard to whom a valid statutory declaration of conscientious objection to vaccination is in force.
931
(2) A fee of two shillings and sixpence in respect of each Case of successful vaccination or revaccination by the public vaccinator elsewhere than at the home of the person vaccinated or revaccinated.
(3) A fee of seven shillings and sixpence in respect of each case of successful vaccination or revaccination by the public vaccinator at the home of the person vaccinated or revaccinated.

Mr. LUNN: 54.
asked the Minister of Health what are the fees paid to private practitioners in Keighley for every person successfully vaccinated, and what are the fees paid to the medical officer of health?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has no information on these points, but I may say that no fees are payable out of public funds for vaccinations performed by private practitioners, and that the remuneration recommended by my right hon. Friend's Department for the vaccination or re-vaccination by a medical officer of health of persons who have been in immediate contact with persons suffering from smallpox is a payment of not less than 2s. 6d. per case.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

WIRELESS NEWS.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 55.
asked the Postmaster-General how many wireless organisations are distributing wireless news from this country, either for payment or gratuitously; and whether he will give the names in each case and the conditions under which each operate?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): rose
—

HON. MEMBERS: "Shoot! Shoot!"

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I gave my hon. Friend this information in reply to a question by him on 23rd November: last, and I am sending him a copy of that answer. There has been no change since then, and the only two distributors are the Foreign Office and the Wireless Press, Limited.

Mr. THURTLE: In the event of any of these organisations distributing in-Correct news, what penalty does the right hon. Gentleman inflict?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the Question.

WIRELESS TELEPHONY (GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES).

Sir F. WISE: 56.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of wireless telephony calls between Britain and the United States and the United States and Britain for January?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The number of telephone calls in the Anglo-American service from 7th January (the date of inauguration of the service) to the end of that month, was 105 from Great Britain and 160 from America.

Colonel DAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the question of making a reduction in the cost of this very costly service to the subscriber?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think we must wait a little.

Mr. J. JONES: And then be shot.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGHWAYS OF EMPIRE MAP.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 57.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, whether his attention has been drawn to the world map entitled Highways of Empire, issued by the Empire Marketing Board, on which the mandated territories are printed in the same colour as the annexed portions of the British Empire, while the Sudan is printed in two colours, showing that it has not been annexed by the British Empire; and whether he will consider the advisability of recommending that in future issues the mandated areas should be shown in a colour which will indicate that their status differs from that of other British dependencies?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): I have been asked to reply to this question. Having regard to the nature of the purposes for which the map in question was issued by the Empire Marketing Board, I see no reason to think that its colouring is likely to cause any misapprehension as to the position of the various classes of Mandated Territories.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR COACHES (FIRST-AID OUTFITS).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 58.
asked the Minister of Transport, whether, in view of the numerous accidents to motor coaches and other similar vehicles, he is prepared to take such steps as may be necessary to make it compulsory that a first-aid outfit be carried on all such vehicles?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): While I view with considerable satisfaction the action of many operators of public service vehicles in equipping their vehicles with first-aid outfits and appliances, and in training their employés in their use, I do not think it would be reasonable to make the provision of such equipment compulsory; nor, indeed, have I at the present time any powers in the matter.

Sir F. HALL: May I ask what action the right hon. Gentleman will take?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have no power to take action.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY ACCIDENTS, HULL.

Mr. FENBY: 59.
asked the Minister of Transport if he has any particulars of the cause of the railway disaster in Hull, on Monday, 14th February; and whether, seeing that this is tin second accident in the same place in 10 days, he will cause inquiries to be made into the construction and arrangements existing at Paragon Station and its approaches for the arrival and departure of trains from this centre?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have ordered inquiries to be held into the, circumstances of both of the accidents to which the hon. Member refers, and until I receive the reports of these inquiries, I shall not be in a position to snake any statement. I have, however, called the attention of the Inspecting Officer to the points raised in the question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there have been no complaints at all about the efficiency of the station itself at Hull, and that the accident occurred well outside the station?

Colonel ASHLEY: All I have asked the Inspecting Officer to do, when he is
inquiring into the exact cause of the accident, is to inquire into all the circumstances.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that it is one of the most up-to-date stations in England?

Mr. GROTRIAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since the amalgamation of the railways, the London and North-Eastern Railway Company have closed two passenger stations in Hull, and thus aggravated a situation which was becoming intolerable?

Mr. THOMAS: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman keep in mind that there is still to be an inquiry which may involve the personal position of men, and would it not be much better not to prejudice the case?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have no wish to prejudice the case; all I wish is that the inspecting officer should he fully seized of the position.

Sir J. NALL: Is it not thoroughly undesirable to raise an agitation before these inquiries are held?

Colonel ASHLEY: No agitation has been raised. An inquiry is always held, and all I said was that I would draw the attention of the inspecting officer to the points raised in the original question.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Smithers.

Mr. SULLIVAN: If the number quoted, 68, is correct, it is mine.

Mr. SPEAKER: The number is 68, and the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Sullivan) claims it. On looking at the name a second time I think it is Mr. Sullivan.

MINING INDUSTRY.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the position in the Mining Industry, and move a Resolution.

SOCIALIST ORGANISATIONS (COMMUNISTS).

Major BRAITHWAITE: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I
will call attention to the failure of the Socialist party to exclude Communists from their organisations, and move a Resolution.

AGRICULTURE.

Mr. HARTSHORN: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the question of Agriculture, and move a Resolution.

BILLS PRESENTED.

SALE OF FOOD AND MUGS BILL,

"to amend the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1907," presented by Mr. JACOB; supported by Mr. Clayton, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Tinne, Mr. Womersley, Colonel England, and Mr. Fenby; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 36.]

PARISH COUNCILS (NATIONAL ASSOCIATION EXPENSES) BILL,

"to remove doubts as to the legality of certain payments by parish councils," presented by Mr. RHINE; supported by Sir Charles Wilson, Mr. Webb, Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, Mr. Robert Richardson, Lieut.-Colonel Gadie, Mr. Womersley, and Mr. Jephcott; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 37.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

Consolidation Bills,—That they have appointed a Committee consisting of six Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider all Consolidation Bills in the present Session, and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1926–27.

CLASS II.

BEET SUGAR SUBSIDY, GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary Sum, not exceeding £450,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for a Subsidy on Sugar and Molasses manufactured from Beet grown in Great Britain.

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE.: Last night I had an opportunity of speaking on this question for two or three minutes before Progress was reported. I was then referring to some questions put to the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) who took a considerable part in establishing this industry, and who has expressed throughout his interest and encouragement in regard to it. In dealing with the question whether the sugar subsidy is justified or not—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong in allowing the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) to raise the question of the policy of sugar subsidy because that has already been decided. Seeing that this is simply a Vote due to under-estimating the amount required for the subsidy, it will not be in order to discuss again the policy of the subsidy.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I should like to be clear as to how far we are going to be allowed to debate the effect of the subsidy, not on production but on the finances of the factory. The Act of Parliament makes provision for the presentation of the accounts, and unless we can make proper criticisms on the Supplementary Estimates there is no other way of safeguarding the rights of Members of this House.

Colonel GRETTON: While it may be perfectly reasonable to exclude a discussion on the policy of these subsidies, surely we may be allowed to discuss the expenditure in these Estimates upon a new factory.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that this is an occasion for a discussion upon the policy of the subsidy. This question of policy has been discussed on previous occasions and it has been decided by the House. It is now only a question of under-estimating the amount of the money required for the subsidy, therefore no question of policy can arise.

Mr. HARRIS: Surely a ruling of this kind makes it impossible to discuss the question of policy in regard to these subsidies at all.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is not an occasion to discuss the policy.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I draw your attention, Captain FitzRoy, to the fact that in the past, when dealing with a large sum of money like this, a fairly wide scope has been allowed in regard to the discussion. This is a very large sum indeed, and I put it to you respectfully that you might allow a fairly wide discussion.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I agree that it is a very large sum, but it is only a fraction of the original Estimate, and that fact in no way affects the policy which has already been decided upon by the House.

Sir G. COURTHOPE: I propose to confine my remarks to the very satisfactory indication conveyed to my mind, and to the minds of others interested in the sugar beet industry, by the fact that a, Supplementary Estimate is necessary this year. When the original Estimates were drawn up, there was approximately accurate information as to the acreage that would be put under sugar beet this year. Where the original Estimates fell short of actual experience is in the volume of the crop grown per acre, and the quality of the beet that formed that crop. Those are the two factors which are the measure of commercial sugar produced on each acre of beet. Both of those factors have made a most satisfactory increase this year over the ex-
perience of last year. Last year, in its turn, showed higher figures than the previous year. This indicates to my mind that the hopes of the pioneers of the sugar beet industry in this country are being justified. The farmers, and their labourers who are working this beet production on English farms, particularly in the Eastern Counties, are learning year by year to produce a larger quantity and a better quality of beet. It is of great importance that that should be so, because it is only by a steady improvement in the quantity and quality of the beet grown per acre, and the amount of commercial sugar produced per acre, that we based our hopes that the industry could establish itself in spite of the gradual fall and the eventual disappearance of the subsidy. There are many farmers who a few years ago were producing five, six or seven tons per acre of second-rate beet which are now producing 14, 16 and even 18 tons per acre. It is a justification for the subsidy that the tonnage per acre is a full ton more than was estimated, and the sugar percentage 1 per cent. more than that shown in the figures for last year. That is a strong indication that this House was right in deciding to make a great effort to try a great experiment in establishing a sugar beet industry under subsidy.
4.0 p.m.
What is the exact position with regard to the fall in the subsidy which takes place next year? There is one more year of the high-grade subsidy to go, and then it drops 6s. 6d. per cwt. of sugar. That 6s. 6d. drop, converted into terms of raw material of beet, means approximately per ton of beet delivered at the factory. That is on a 15½ per cent. basis. Probably, if the beet continues at the higher quality, as it is to-day, it will mean something over £1 per ton—that has to be borne either by the factory or by the farmer or both—from the present price which the factories are paying the farmers for their beet. I am a beet grower myself, and I say without hesitation, though I dare say many people will blame me for saying it, that the experience of this year proves beyond all doubt that the farmer who is growing beet with proper methods on suitable land is well able to bear a, full share in
the inevitable fall in the price of beet owing to the fall in the amount of the subsidy. I am extremely hopeful, as are all those connected with the industry, that this improvement both in quantity and quality which we see this year will be maintained and will be progressive, and that, just as the farmers who have been growing for five or six years are producing at least double the amount of sugar per acre than they did when they started, so those who have grown this year for the first time will in four or five years' time be growing a much heavier crop of much higher quality than they are to-day, and that by that means we shall find that four years hence the second drop in the subsidy need be feared no more than I for one fear the impending drop next year.
There was one matter which I should like to deal with if I am not out of order, and that was the interjection—it was quite friendly—which came from the opposite benches when I started to speak last night. I was referring to this increase of production, and the interjection suggested that the result of that, and I gathered the only result, of that increase would be an increase of rent.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a question which we can discuss on this Vote.

Sir G. COURTHOPE: I dare say that another opportunity will arise when I can do so. In addition to the agricultural side with which I have attempted to deal insofar as it bears on the need for this Vote or this increase of subsidy, there is another element which also bears upon it. It is that, just as the agricultural side have tuned up year after year to greater efficiency, so has the manufacturing side. The efficiency in the factories producing beet sugar has been steadily improved. There is still room for improvement, but it has been steadily improving, and that, also, is a very good sign that our hopes and anticipations will prove to be justified and that when the subsidy comes to an end this industry may find itself on so sure a foundation that it will be able to compete with its international competitors in the sugar markets of the world.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Some of us on these benches, in discussing the grant of the subsidy to the British beet indus-
try, have had occasion to make certain references to those who are engaged in the financing of it. I want to say at the outset that the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) who, as he published last night, has been mixed up with this industry from the beginning is in my judgment not the class of person engaged in the industry whom we ever desired to attack. I want to say here, as I have said before, that his long and devoted service to the cause, however mistaken in my judgment it may be, is from an altruistic point of view one of great worthiness, and, whatever I may say at a later stage, I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member will not think that I am in any way referring to his association with the industry. He has referred to the Vote as proving one or two things, and, as he has been allowed to make those points, I think you will also allow me to reply to them. He has stated that the request for an additional grant of £450,000 is really a proof that the production per acre has been better and that everything is going very well for the future of the sugar-beet industry. I recognise that there has been a slight increase in the yield per acre, and I recognise also that there has been a slight increase in the percentage of sugar content, but I altogether disagree with the hon. and gallant Member if he thinks that those slight increases show a clear period of prosperity for the sugar-beet industry in this country. I myself still think that when the industry comes to meet keen competitive winds on the first half subsidy rate and then with no subsidy at all these prognostications will prove to be entirely fallacious.
The hon. and gallant Member referred to the fact that all three parties in the House had been proved to be right in making great efforts to establish this particular industry. While it is true that the majority of all parties in the House were in favour of it, it is also true that there was at least a fairly important minority in each of the parties in the House who were against granting the subsidy, and I think when it comes to balancing the matter either in a year and a half's time, or, perhaps what will be a more important period, in five years' time, the minority in the matter will prove to have been on fairly safe ground. Moreover, he says that when the first reduction in the subsidy takes place its effect will be that
the factories and the growers between them will have to provide rather more than £1 per ton, which is at present covered by the subsidy. It is very significant that the hon. and gallant Member should then say from his personal experience as a grower that he thought the farmer would be well able to meet a share—I gathered from the tone of his remarks a considerable share—of that £1 per ton which had to be found. Then what becomes of the claim which has always been made in connection with this subsidy, that it was going to mean considerably higher wages for the workers in the agricultural industry?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member began his remarks by saying that he thought I should allow him to reply to some remarks which had been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope). I think he has gone far enough in that direction now, and he must return to the actual Vote.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am very loath, to be at variance at any time with the Chair, but the hon. and gallant Member has made a statement that the farmer is well able to bear a share of the reduction, and surely it is not unreasonable to be able to answer the point that he has made. It is difficult for us to reply to that unless we draw the proper deductions from the result of the farmer bearing a share of the reduction. If I am not allowed to pursue the matter, I limply ask the hon. and gallant Member to think it over in the meantime. I do not want to beat variance with the Chair on the point, but I am quite certain that it is not going to be possible, as the industry goes on under the new conditions, to fulfil the pledge that was made in respect of higher wages, if the farmer has to bear that share of the reduction. I would also remind him on that point that, when it comes to the end of the total period of the subsidy, the farmer will have to look to a very much larger reduction, and, whereas the price of beet, which has had to be covered under the subsidy which we are voting to-day, has been, I suppose, a variable figure from 44s. to 50s. per ton, Sir Daniel Hall, the expert of the Ministry of Agriculture, has said on more than one occasion, and perhaps never more clearly than in his introduction to a book on beet sugar production, that,
ultimately the farmer will have to face the production of beet at a price of not more than from 25s. to 30s. per ton. The hon. and gallant Member agrees.
All I can say is that the imports of sugar as compared with home-produced sugar during the last two years do not show to me that under such circumstances the British farmer will be able to make a success of beet growing at that price. Ws were told yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) that one result of the subsidy had been that we were now in this country producing, instead of a negligible quantity, five weeks' supply. Yes, but when I examine the figures of this year in more detail I find that imported refined sugar has increased in volume, although we have also this larger measure of home-grown sugar. Really, what has happened has been that the sugar which was formerly known as British refined sugar, in which there was a considerable volume of employment in this country, has been merely substituted by the homegrown sugar from the beet industry. In 1925 57 per cent. of our sugar was British refined. In 1926 it was only 35 per cent., a drop of 22 per cent. It is significant, in those circumstances, that the homegrown sugar has increased from 7 per sent. to 22 per cent-. While the subsidy which we are voting to-day may be argued by some to have been providing employment in agricultural areas, and I agree at once that it has provided a certain amount of employment, it has also displaced in Silvertown and in Greenock, men who are now on the Employment Exchanges unable to get work as the result of the payment of this subsidy.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Can the hon. Member say what the effect on unemployment has been on balance, taking into consideration the extra employment in agriculture?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Could the hon. Member also say anything about the volume? If he has the figures with regard to that, I think they would be interesting.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I have not, as a matter of fact, got them with me at the moment—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member now appears to be entering into an argument with hon. Members on the other side as to what has been the effect of the subsidy upon unemployment. That, however, is not really the point before the Committee to-day. This is a Supplementary Estimate to provide for the fact that a larger quantity of beet has been grown under the subsidy than was originally contemplated. That is the only question before the Committee.

Mr. ALEXANDER: It is very difficult to exercise an effective check upon the large expenditure from public funds which is involved in a Supplementary Vote of £450,000—which is not a small sum—unless we can also exercise our right to criticise the object of the expenditure when we are voting as representing the people, and, although I agree that it is difficult sometimes to get away from Standing Orders, I hope that you, Sir, will take the view expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that, when we are considering such a large sum, we should be allowed as much latitude as is possible in the circumstances.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am sure I should be wrong in allowing, on a Supplementary Estimate, so wide a discussion as the hon. Member suggests. This Supplementary Estimate is only for the increased sum required in respect of the increased amount of sugar beet that has been grown.

Mr. ALEXANDER: If that be so, I shall do no more than inform the House as to what is the financial result of the voting of the money, and I think, Sir, you will agree that that will not be out of order. When the Bill itself was passing through the House, we insisted on the insertion of a Clause providing for the laying before the House from time to time of duly audited accounts of the beet factories which were set up as a result of the subsidy. Unfortunately, I was unable to persuade the Minister at the time that the accounts should be as detailed as I should have liked, and we are confined to an audited statement of liabilities and assets. Even so, from that we are able to get a very fair idea as to what the effect of the subsidy really is. Taking the season 1925–26, the accounts
of which are published in White Paper No. 133, the Kelham Factory shows a surplus of £3,125, Cantley—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not see that that has anything to do with this Supplementary Estimate. The Estimate has nothing to do with the accounts of the various factories; it is merely a question now of the amount of sugar that is going to be grown, and for which the subsidy is required. That is the only question before the Committee, and I must ask the hon. Member to be good enough to adhere to it.

Mr. ALEXANDER: In that case I am not going to pursue my argument to-day, but will only say that I think it is unfortunate—I am not in any way reflecting upon the Chair; I am sure you will understand that—that, in the voting of such a very large sum as this, we cannot be allowed to express the views of constituents and of taxpayers generally upon the object for which it is asked for.

Major G. DAVIES: As a rule, when the House is faced with Supplementary Estimates, it is a field day and an opportunity for hon. Members who happen to be in Opposition, to whichever party they belong, because their Whips come to them and say, "If you cannot legislate for your country, you can procrastinate for your party." On this occasion, however, the severe limits which you, Sir, have set to the Debate will not only facilitate the smooth passage of this Estimate, but will rather cramp the style of everyone who wishes to take part in the Debate. I do not complain of that for a moment, but certainly it does rule out a great many matters of general interest which some of us would like to touch upon. You yourself, Sir, have pointed out that the real matter before the Committee is that an additional amount of Government subsidy has to be provided because an additional amount of sugar beet beyond that which was estimated has been grown in this country during the past year. The right hon. Gentleman who was Minister of Agriculture when the Labour party were in office pointed out yesterday that he regarded the whole question of this subsidy as an educational grant. If that be so, surely we may take unction unto ourselves that the policy of His Majesty's Government has resulted in such an extension of well-applied
subsidy towards the matter of education with regard to agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman expressed some doubt as to whether the farmers of the country had been taking full advantage of the educational facilities of various kinds which this and preceding Governments have endeavoured to place at their disposal, but, nevertheless, it does seem to me that, although, as the last speaker pointed out, this is in itself a considerable sum of money that we are asked to vote to-day, that is a proof of the soundness and the success of the policy which deliberately decided that some such sum should be applied, not only to broaden education in the matter of agriculture—

Mr. ALEXANDER: On a point of Order. Hon. Members are allowed to say from the other side that the voting of this sum of money to-day is a proof of the wisdom of the policy which has already been decided in this House; but, when that point is made from the other side, we are not allowed to use any facts or figures or make any general case to show that we do not approve of that and to prove that the statements made by hon. Members are not well founded.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member misunderstood my previous ruling. I understood that the hon. and gallant Member was only stating what had been said by a previous speaker.

Major DAVIES: In the interests of harmony and in my own interests I shall endeavour to keep within the rules of order as I understand they have been laid down in regard to this Debate. I was merely endeavouring, in a general way, to point out that what we are being asked to do is to approve of a Supplementary Estimate which, in itself, was absolutely inevitable if there was to be a really successful result of the policy which was originally laid down in connection with the provision of the subsidy. The reason is simply that, as you, Sir, have said, there has been an additional area of sugar beet planted, and that sugar beet itself has been a move valuable article. I myself can bear testimony to what was laid down by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) with regard to the improvement of methods and results in this nascent industry. While we can
all pose as prophets with regard to what the results are going to be in the times that are ahead of us when the subsidy is entirely removed, surely, even if we take a pessimistic view of those possibilities, it is a matter of satisfaction that, under the present conditions at least, the result is one of progress rather than of recession. Therefore, it does seem to me that, of all Supplementary Estimates that may come before this Committee—and we always deplore the necessity for such things—this is one which it is impossible to deplore, because it is inevitable, having regard to the development of the industry, and from our point of view it is a satisfactory proof of the desirability of the policy that has been deliberately pursued by His Majesty's Government. Therefore, my feeling, in voting in favour of this Supplementary Estimate, is an exception to my feelings on other Supplementary Estimates, and I do so with pleasure because I regard it as setting the seal for the time being on the success of the policy which we decided a few years ago to pursue.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I should like to make one or two observations on this fairly considerable Estimate. I notice that the increased sum required is approximately half a million pounds. One of the big things that we expected, when this policy was first commenced, was that, in the first place, we were going to provide a good deal of employment—that we were going to divert from our cities into the countryside quite a large number of workpeople. I should like to ask the Minister if any estimate has been obtained, in view of this increased production of sugar beet, of the increased number of rural workers that have been employed because of the development of the sugar beet industry. Yesterday, in reply to a question, the right hon. Gentleman said that, as far as he knew, not one acre of land had been brought into cultivation as a result of the development of the sugar beet scheme.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I think the hon. Member cannot have misunderstood my answer. He asked whether the arable acreage as a whole had increased, and I said I was pretty sure not. As a matter of fact, it
is well known that in certain counties, on rough land, a lot of gorse has been ploughed up, and has increased the arable acreage; but that is very different from the wider question that he asked yesterday.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am very pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman make that statement. It is some small consolation to those of us who felt that the expenditure of a very large sum of money had not in the aggregate increased the numbers in a very healthy and useful occupation. In view of the number of workers who have been displaced, however, there will be a balance on one side or the other, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us, before this Vote is finally carried, what exactly, as far as he can estimate, has been the net result of the transference or diversion of labour from towns to cities, and what the net result is with regard to unemployment in this country. The hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), who has had such a lengthy and honourable record in the development of this new industry, told us that this Supplementary Estimate is exclusively due to the exceedingly large production of sugar beet per acre, and the sugar content of the beet produced. He told us that those who had been producing sugar beet had been in the habit of producing seven tons, or slightly more, per acre, whereas, during the last season, many producers were producing 14, 16 and 18 tons per acre. That does, of course, change the financial position of this scheme, and it changes the financial position of each farmer. Although the Government are called upon to meet a much larger bill with a production of 16 as compared with seven tons per acre, the farmer, obviously, must be increasing his own balance sheet to a very considerable extent, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if this increased production by the farmer has in any way reflected itself in the wages of the work-people in the particular areas where sugar beet has been, and is being, produced. If he will tell us that the workers are receiving some slight benefit as a result of this large expenditure of public money, it would be some consolation to us, first, to see a new industry developing and, secondly, to know that public money is finding its way into the pockets of the working people.
There is another question which one would be entitled to submit this afternoon. In seeking to settle, definitely once and for all, the sugar beet industry, one would like to know whether the Government have persuaded the manufacturers of machinery in this country to manufacture the type of machinery necessary for sugar beet factories. It has been felt, and I think quite rightly, that if the industry was going to be developed in rural areas, and it was going to have the effect of causing manufacturers of machinery to specialise on this particular kind of machinery instead of our having to purchase it from abroad, there would be another avenue opened out which would provide work for British working people. In looking at the question of the employment which has been found as a result of the development of the sugar beet industry, one would like to know to what extent, if any, have British manufacturers of machinery adapted themselves for the purpose of producing this particular machinery, and to what extent has that reflected itself in increasing the number of workpeople.
The £450,600 mentioned in this Estimate is a considerable item. One hon. Member suggests that it reflects the success of a pertain policy. It certainly reflects this, that if the land which is now being used for the production of sugar beet had been used previously, without Government assistance, to the fullest extent., better results could have been obtained years ago by the people in charge of the land, and who were operating the land and did not do their best to secure the maximum value from its working. It seems peculiar that before the Government began to assist the producers of sugar beet, they were only producing seven tons per acre, but when the Government said, "We will give you a considerable sum to assist you and to stabilise your industry, then they are able to increase the produce from seven tons per acre to 14, 16 and 18 tons per acre. That is one of the things which makes some of us feel that the statements which we are constantly making that the best use has not been made of the land are justified. The best use is not made of the land when it remains for Government subsidies to persuade farmers to extract the utmost value and to provide the maximum quantity of labour. That is not a testi-
menial to those people who have been in charge of the land for so long. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us the real effect of this new industry in the increased opportunities for labour on the land, in the increased production of machinery and the general effect upon British labour.

Mr. HURD: There is one aspect of this Supplementary Estimate which, when-brought to their notice, will give some consolation to hon. Members opposite. I refer to the part which the smallholder has taken in the production of sugar beet, which is one of the reasons for the Supplementary Estimate. The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) is, in general, a cheerful controversialist. I believe he is making a special effort just now in connection with the organisation with which he is associated, to bring it more closely into touch with agricultural interests. I am sure he will I not despise a movement which as represented in this Supplementary Estimate has saved from starvation many smallholders as well as many farmers during the past season. That aspect of the question is worthy of his attention, representing, as he does, one of the small parties in this House and outside opposed to the policy of the Supplementary Estimate. I hold in my hand a petition which has been sent to me by smallholders in my constituency.

Mr. HARRIS: On a point of Order. Shall we he allowed to discuss the policy of helping smallholders in this country?

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: That would not be in order on this Vote. I do not think the hon. Member is doing that; he is only referring to the increased production of sugar on small holdings.

Mr. HURD: These smallholders, who have been growing sugar beet under the money contained in this Estimate, have sent me a petition expressing their extreme anxiety as to their future. They have been encouraged by this House, and the Committee to-day is going to implement that encouragement, to grow sugar beet. They want to know whether it is not possible for this House to complete this policy by insuring them a market for their sugar beet.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think we can go into that.

Mr. HURD: This money has been partially applied to the encouragement of factories, and, if I am within your Ruling, I should like to point out that it would have been even more satisfactory had it been decided to apply it also to smaller units as well as the larger units of factory production. I do not want to trespass, but it is difficult to bring one's remarks exactly within the ruling. Here we have a substantial sum of money which is being voted by Parliament for the encouragement of sugar beet. I wish the Minister to consider whether, in the use of this money, he might not have been more wise to have remembered the small as well as the large unit of manufacture. We have just passed an Act directly to encourage the small man on the land to enable them to own a little bit of England, and this Supplementary Estimate has been of the greatest value in pursuit of that policy. I want the Minister to look at this question of sugar beet from the point of view of the smallholder, and to realise that by means of this Estimate we have helped a large number of these small men to become better established on the land, and that by pursuing that policy which is represented in the Estimate, we might go still further and do what this House and all parties of us desire to do, namely, to get more small men on to the land, thus enabling them to make a living for themselves and their families.
There is a number of other points with which I would have liked to deal, but it is extremely difficult to bring them within the ruling. I am certain that the policy represented in this Supplementary Estimate is a policy of the highest value from the point of view of arable production in general, and especially from the point of view of smallholders.

Mr. ALEXANDER: What do your petitioners ask?

Mr. HURD: They ask me to use my influence with the National Farmers' Union, the Ministry of Agriculture and this House to induce this House to make the sugar beet subsidy based upon a smaller unit of production. There is the production of motor fuel.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must deal with that on some other Vote.

Mr. HURD: The Minister has been good enough to look at some aspects of this question in regard to the smaller unit, but, unfortunately, he has looked at it from under the shadow of existing vested interests. He has not gone into the question of the smallholders' relation to sugar production from a detached and entirely dispassionate point of view. He has allowed himself, rather, to be influenced by those who are thinking of existing combines anal large vested interests. I am sure that is wrong. Sugar beet as affecting the smallholder is a question well worth consideration, quite apart from the existing interests, and to see whether we have not in this a means of increasing arable production by means of the small man on a farm, which would be of the highest value in pursuit of the policy to which this House has committed itself. I commend to my right hon. Friend a review of the whole question in a new light, so that we may, if we can, give the smallholder new hope in this country.

Mr. HARRIS: I am very glad to say that, to a limited extent, I agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down. I agree with him that, if there is any money to be given from the State, it should go to those who best deserve it, and if this system of subsidies is to be carried on, the money should go to the smaller units of production, and not to helping existing vested interests. With that principle I am in general agreement, and if the hon. Member desires to promote a Bill in order to bring in the smaller units of production, I should not be able to differ from him. I am glad to see that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is present. The Financial Secretary is the last person to defend Supplementary Estimates. It must add to his worries and troubles, and it must make the task of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is difficult enough at all times, more difficult and more tiresome to carry out. Under the ruling from the Chair, we are not able to criticise the principle of the policy underlying this Estimate, but to look at it merely from the point of view of a Supplementary Estimate.
Here we are, at a time of great national crisis when the country is already overburdened with taxation; when we are threatened with increased taxes, when
the national Budget is not likely to balance, and we are coming down here to dole out money to a favoured interest. If any hon. Member opposite can defend that principle and policy, I shall be very much surprised. Of course, hon. Members from agricultural districts are going to get certain favoured interests developed, and consequently they will be in favour of the Estimate; but I do think the Minister of Agriculture will have to explain a good deal to the Treasury as to his bad estimating in this particular case. If he is going to come down and ask for a favoured section of the agricultural interests to have national money, lie ought to be able to calculate more closely what it will cost. We were only persuaded to vote this money on the understanding that it was only by giving this particular subsidy to the beet sugar industry in its early days that it could be made to pay. Now it is clear from the facts that the yield per acre is so much larger that it would have been possible to come to the House and ask for a very much smaller rate of subsidy. It would have been playing fairer with Parliament and the nation to ask Parliament to reduce the subsidy rather than to bring forward a Supplementary Estimate. The Government might very well say to the farmers, "We were misled. This is a paying proposition." We have been told by one hon. Member that sugar beet can be made to pay. The Minister of Agriculture explained this away by saying that, owing to a greater yield per acre and to the advantage of the experiments made in Holland and other countries, not so large a subsidy is necessary. In the interests of the taxpayers, it would be fairer, therefore, to reduce the subsidy rather than to ask for a Supplementary Estimate.
The fact is, the whole system of subsidies is vicious, bad and unsatisfactory. No Minister can defend it in principle. Why sugar should be particularly singled out for favour, I do not know—the only explanation, I suppose, is because it is sweet—but this and other—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now embarking on the general question of subsidies.

Mr. HARRIS: I am quite prepared to act within the limits of your ruling, Captain FitzRoy, but when I see the vicious
results of a subsidy it is very difficult not to make a protest. When we spoke against this subsidy, we anticipated this sort of thing. We said that, once you started on these lines, you would constantly have Ministers asking for Supplementary Estimates for more money from the already over-burdened taxpayers, including the people in the towns, who will not get any benefit from this. In my district many people are out of employment; they cannot get any subsidies from the Government, and they will have to pay.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I told the hon. Member just now that he was embarking on the question of the subsidies, and he is doing so again. I hope he will not go on with that.

Mr. HARRIS: I quite see the difficulty. It really is rather difficult, when Parliament is asked to vote large sums of money, and we are not allowed to discuss the principle which has brought about these extra charges.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is a proper occasion for everything. A separate occasion is set apart for discussing this very question which the hon. Member wants to debate now. The only point is that this is not the occasion on which to discuss it.

Mr. HARRIS: If we are not allowed to discuss the general principle of subsidies, may I ask whether the Minister of Agriculture is satisfied that next year there will not be a still further Supplementary Estimate; whether, owing to a greater yield and the extension of acreage, he will be able more closely to estimate the result of this subsidy, or whether it is going to be a mere gamble. Will he be able to go to his Finance Minister, as a result of his policy—

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Before the Minister of Agriculture answers that question, will the hon. Gentleman tell the Minister what the weather is going to be next year.

Mr. HARRIS: I entirely agree that agriculture is a gamble. With good weather you make good prices and profits; but if the Minister is going to take up the line of baying to compensate farmers for bad weather, where are we going to end? If that be his policy and the policy of Members opposite in regard to agriculture, I am sorry for the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. This policy is bad, it is wrong in principle, and will sooner or later be a heavy charge on the Exchequer.

Mr. KIDD: I intervene only in order to express the hope that we may get some information why sugar beet growing has not been taken up so enthusiastically in my part of Scotland as in other parts of the country. In regard to my own part of Scotland, I was encouraged to hope, from a remark of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Eye (Sir G. Courthope), who opened this discussion, that perhaps that period of caution might now be brought to a conclusion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to have very gratifying information which was a complete vindication of this system. He indicated that any reduction in the subsidy in England would be more than balanced by the increased value arising from the greater production per acre plus the increased yield per ton. I am not forgetting the weather, and I have no wish that the Minister of Agriculture should gamble in respect to that; but I wonder, having regard to the diminution in the amount of the subsidy, whether the data already supplied by his experts and the information coming from any other quarter, taken in conjunction with the results of our own experience, would justify more than a hope that sugar beet growing can now be regarded as a success; and that once we have become familiar with it, and have got greater knowledge through its cultivation, there will be every justification for the farmers of this country taking it up in good earnest.
I could not follow one argument of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander). He has had a very large experience, as representing in his daily life the greatest consumers of sugar in this country. The hon. Gentleman said that this year we had imported more sugar and we had raised more sugar at home. He discovered in those two facts, taken together, some explanation, which I could not follow, for some displacement of employment.

Mr. ALEXANDER: My point was that you have got a larger percentage of imported refined sugar and that the gain
on home-grown sugar has been at the expense of British refined sugar.

Mr. KIDD: I understand now that the hon. Gentleman was distinguishing between the quality of the sugar and not the volume of the sugar. I think he will agree with me that if a greater volume was imported and a larger volume was produced, it would be rather difficult to discover in those two facts any reason for displacing employment. I quite understand that everything appertaining to agriculture is, ultimately, a gamble, and I am not discussing that, but I ask the Minister—for the guidance of large areas where some new agricultural development will be of the greatest advantage to all engaged on the land, whether as farmers, smallholders or ploughmen, and for the guidance of those districts which had been ultra-careful and almost selfishly careful up to this point—if he can give an indication that from our experience plus the knowledge available from other sources to the Ministry, we may now regard ourselves as having arrived at the stage when sugar beet growing under normal conditions has been proved to be a new departure on which the agriculturist may embark with at least as large a measure of confidence as he would embark on the growing of wheat.

Mr. J. JONES: I cannot pretend to speak with the same amount of authority on the production of sugar-beet as agricultural persons generally and eminent lawyers from Scotland; but I represent a constituency which happens to be the centre of the preduction of sugar in Great Britain. Messrs. Tate and Lyle happen to be the largest firm of this kind, not merely in this country but in the world, and they have built up their business without a subsidy. I am not an advocate of private enterprise, generally speaking. I believe that all these problems could be solved by the nation solving its own problems and taking control of its own possibilities. This particular section of industry has been subsidised at the expense of the State, the Government have advanced a large amount of money for the purpose of assisting sugar-beet. We do not object to the agricultural districts of this country being developed to their fullest possibilities; the land in this country has never been cultivated as it ought to have been done, and to that extent we are all
in favour of this. The only question is the method of doing it. We are told now that the Government are prepared to subsidise the beet sugar industry to a further extent to the amount of £450,000. That is a local charge and not a national one, in the real sense of the term. An hon. Member, speaking just now, spoke of the little man, but what about those who have established an industry representing millions of capital? They cannot get anything except competition, and within the next 20 years, for example, 10 factories paid for by the Government will be handed over to private enterprise. You are subsidising private enterprise in industries at the expense of industries already established.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The remarks of the hon. Member refer to the general question of subsidies, hut this is only the fulfilment of an obligation into which the House has already entered. The granting of this extra £450,000 has nothing to do with the principle of the subsidy; that the House has already agreed to.

Mr. JONES: I beg your pardon if I dispute your ruling, to point out that this £450,000 is part of the money we have to pay for subsidies. It is only a development of the same case. I am pointing out to you that during what is called the off-season in the sugar-beet industry thousands of men in London, Liverpool, Greenock, and other parts of the country where the sugar-producing industry exists, live without subsidy and are thrown on the streets for six weeks at a time in order to pay for the subsidy to the sugar-beet industry. That is not fair play. If there is to be a subsidy, let there be one all round: but you simply subsidise one side and leave the other side to live on its own exertions.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is again referring to a principle which the House has already accepted, that of subsidising the industry. He must deal with the £450,000 which is the result of the action of the House.

Mr. JONES: I thank you. Captain FitzRoy, again, but I want to say that, as far as my own constituency is concerned, this has meant the shooting out of 800 workmen for six weeks periodically, because the factories cannot be kept
going owing to the competition of the subsidised factories. They are engaged in the production of sugar-beet from all parts of the Empire—"Buy British Goods"—

Mr. HURD: Was that due to the coal stoppage?

5.0 p.m.

Mr. JONES: You know that the sugar-beet industry is a seasonal one, and that it is only at certain times of the year that the factories are able to operate. During that time they produced as much as ever they could. But then the workers in Silvertown and Liverpool and Greenock were thrown out of employment because of these subsidised factories. We have never asked for a subsidy. You are giving subsidies to these particular factories and in ten years from now 20 factories are going to be handed over to the subsidised companies. Twenty Government paid factories, and this £450,000 is simply a payment of the interest upon the capital they have invested in the subsidised factories. A subsidy was wrong in the mining industry. The Government denounced a subsidy to the mining industry up hill and down dale.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is still touching on the general principle of a subsidy. That does not arise upon this Vote at all.

Mr. JONES: Thank you very much. Having got in all I want to say, I thank you, Captain FitzRoy, for allowing me to say it. All I want to say is that those of us who represent constituencies in which the sugar industry has been built up, wish to protest as strongly as we can against this kind of subsidised competition. The men who have built up the sugar industry protest against being put on short time and stopped from working altogether. Knowing full well that the beet-sugar factories cannot be kept going without a Government subsidy they protest emphatically against being thrown out of work while other people are kept in work by Government money.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I hope the hon. Member will not expect me to follow him in his speech because I am afraid I should be ruled out of order if I did so. In fact, we find it rather harder to keep within the bounds of order this afternoon than a camel finds it to
go through the eye of a needle. But I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture one or two questions in regard to the sugar beet industry. I understand that the reason for this Supplementary Estimate is because the quantitive results given by the sugar beet industry have been very much better than was estimated. I think all the Members of the Committee are very glad that that is the case, and it would seem also that this Estimate is due to the fact that the financial return given by the industry is also better than was expected, and, therefore, more and more firms are going into it and more and more land is coming under cultivation. Therefore, I think one is entitled to ask—and this backs up the question put by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd)—the Minister of Agriculture if he can give us some details and some of the reasons that have increased the technical efficiency of this industry so that the Committee as a whole can make up their minds and ascertain whether or not, the experiment which the Government are making in giving this subsidy is likely to meet with success, because, in asking the Committee to pass this Vote, one has got to realise that this £450,000 is, of course, a part of a much bigger gamble. If that money is to be of value to the State, and we shall only be able to know whether or not it is of value to the State not this year but in some years to come, we must find out whether or not the industry is likely to be established upon an economic and self-supporting basis. It will help not only Members of this Committee but many agricultural interests outside to know what are the opinions of the Minister of Agriculture as to the technical improvement in the industry for the past year, and the possibility of that technical improvement being continued for the coming year. As I understand it at present, 40 per cent. of the sale price of the sugar is paid for by the subsidy—40 per cent. of the price received. Accordingly, therefore, before the industry can come on to a self-supporting basis without a subsidy the costs of production will have to be reduced by 40 per cent.

Mr. BARNES: By half.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I under stand the average sale value of sugar is
some 30s. per cwt. and the subsidy is 19s. 6d. per cwt., and accordingly the figure one has to take is 49s. 6d., of which 19s. 6d. is about 40 per cent.

Mr. BARNES: Then the duty must come off that.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: That is a matter which I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture to clear up. As I understand it, 40 per cent. of the price received by the factories to-day is a grant-in-aid by way of a subsidy, and therefore, before the industry can be made really self-supporting without drawing upon the National Exchequer the costs of production will have to be reduced by 40 per cent.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: May I put it this way? The home-grown sugar is paying a duty. On the other hand, exactly the same preference is given to the factory, and the duty which is paid in the retail price of sugar at the factory is over 11s. as compared with the Excise Duty charged of something over 9s. The hon. Member wants to add another couple of shillings in order to get the actual ratio.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture will have it worked out accurately, but it will be about 44 per cent, if what the hon. Member says is correct. We have heard this afternoon that the yield per acre has increased from 7 or 8 tons per acre up to 16 or 18 tons per acre in special cases. I should like to know from the Minister of Agriculture what is the average yield to-day over the whole country, what was the average yield over the whole country last year, and what is the average yield in Holland to-day? The second question which is of equal importance to the actual tonnage of beet per acre is the sucrose content of the beet, and I understand that has risen in this country to 17 per cent., whereas in Holland I understand it is something like 19 per cent There again I think I should be grateful if the Minister could say the average yield of the sucrose content over the whole country this year, and again what it is in Holland, because upon those two factors must depend the actual return which the farmer can get from growing his beet.
Then, again, it would be interesting to know whether there are any developments which are likely to give us in the near future a greater yield per acre of the sucrose content than has been obtained up to date in this country or abroad. The other question which seems to be of importance is the question of the factories themselves. As I understand it, the factories only run for four months in the year and, accordingly, therefore, the overhead charges of the factories are not only heavy—

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now going rather far from this Supplementary Estimate of £450,000. His argument seems to be more relevant to the main question than to this particular Supplementary Estimate.

Lieutenant-Commander BURNEY: If I may be allowed to explain the matter, I was pointing out that the reason for the increase in the subsidy is because the industry has been more profitable and has, therefore, attracted more persons to work in the factories and more persons to grow sugar beet, and, therefore, I am asking the Minister of Agriculture whether he can indicate to the Committee whether it is the technical improvement which has given the industry this fillip and which has necessitated this Supplementary Estimate, and it was upon that basis that I asked for this information. If I am in order, I will proceed on those lines. I understand that there is a possibility of a considerable reduction in the cost of the extraction of sugar from the beet if a continuous process can be evolved and that would reduce the overhead charges at the factories to one-half of what they are now. I further understand that considerable experiments have been going on in that direction and it would be interesting to know whether the Minister can give us any information as to whether those experiments have been successful and what are the possibilities of obtaining a continuous process factory.

Mr. GUINNESS: They are continuous process factories.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: The Minister says that they are continuous process factories, but, as I understand it, they only operate four months of the year, because the beet has to be treated
within a few weeks of being gathered. There is a process which enables the beet to be cut and dried and then to be stored for a year or more, and a factory of one-third of the size only would be able to deal in those circumstances with the same output as an existing factory. That would necessarily reduce the capital cant of the factory, and the standing and running charges thereof, and it would get rid or the main difficulties of the labour situation. That is of great importance when we are dealing with the consideration of whether this £450,000 is likely to give useful results or not in putting the industry on a permanent economic basis and anything which can be done to throw light on that question must be of very considerable value not only to Members of this House but also to agricultural interests throughout the country. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will be able to answer those questions, as I have put them with the idea of trying to assist the industry so far as is possible by letting persons know whether or not the establishment of beet growing gives indications becoming a permanent industry in the districts in which they live by pointing out what the yield per acre may be in the future.

Sir JOHN SIMON: This Supplementary Estimate is for a very substantial sum of money, very nearly half a million, and I appreciate that it is only one of a number of such demands upon the taxpayer as we may expect from time to time under the Act of Parliament passed in 1925, because, if I understand rightly, Parliament has already been induced to agree, by the Statute of 1925, to a scheme under which it is contemplated that subsidies calculated on a particular basis will continue for no less than 10 years. Of course, I appreciate that in this Estimate to-day, the policy of that Statute is not open to discussion, but I am, I think, in order and it appears to me it is relevant to call attention to the statement which the Minister of Agriculture made when he presented this Supplementary Estimate to the Committee and recommended it to the Committee in his speech yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture, in asking for this very large sum of money, said:
This money, which the Committee is asked to vote to-night, is evidence of the
success of a policy which was adopted with the general agreement of all parties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1927; col. 844, Vol. 202.]
It is true there were persons in all parts of the House who were in favour of the policy, but it is also true that there were critics to be found in more quarters of the House than one. But, I want to ask the Committee seriously to consider what this claim of the Minister of Agriculture really involves. He commends this demand on the British taxpayer to the Committee on the ground that it is a measure of the success of the policy of the Government in this matter. What an extraordinary thing at this time of the day to say to the British taxpayer "If I was only able to demand £5,000,000 my policy would be ten times more successful than if I only demanded £500,000." While it is true that Parliament in 1925 did pass the Act, at the same time it is entirely within the competence of the present Committee to decline to vote this very large additional sum.
Parliament, no doubt, by passing the Act, must be taken to have expressed a policy which stretches into the future for ten years, but in the end the control of this matter rests with the House of Commons in Committee of Supply, and it is therefore by no means the case that this Committee is called upon to endorse the proposition that the more the Minister of Agriculture calls upon the House of Commons to make the taxpayers of the country raise in connection with beet sugar or any other subsidy the greater is the triumph of the Government's policy. I am quite unable to subscribe to that doctrine. It appears to me on the contrary that the prime consideration which shoal move Members of the House is to protect the British taxpayer against this additional demand which in the circumstances threatens to become larger and larger. I wonder very much whether in some future Committee' of Supply we shall have the Minister coming forward and saying he is now able to record a further triumph on the part of the Government and its policy, for he is now able not merely to demand £500,000 more than lie expected but £1,500,000. I am quite aware that as against this have to be set the proceeds of the Excise Duty on sugar and molasses
manufactured from beet grown in Great Britain, but I would ask the Committee to observe what the broad figures are as disclosed in the details of the present Estimate. If I follow it rightly, for the year 1926 we were originally presented with an Estimate for a subsidy of £2,750,000. The right hon. Gentleman now says "That is not enough and I want very nearly another £500,000, making £3,200,000." As against that apart, of course, from the undoubted effect of subsidising in this way certain beetroot factories, what the State is receiving under the head of Excise Duty is apparently just £500,000, so it appears that the Minister, when taking great. credit to himself and to the Government for being so successful, is, as a matter of fact taking up the position that we shall be able to judge how much more successful the policy of the Government is from period to period and from year to year in exact proportion to the additional amount of money the British taxpayer is asked to find.

Mr. HILTON YOUNG: if I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument, it is that this business is a failure in proportion as it is expensive to the Brtish taxpayer. If that be so it is a success in proportion as it is the reverse, and not expensive to the British taxpayer. If that be so, you can measure the success of the scheme by the smallness of the amount of beetroot it produces. The right hon. Gentleman's ingenuity has surpassed itself. It appears to me taking things in a humble commonsense point of view, listening to the Minis the that his argument was that we might derive consolation from the fact that. our pockets were to be affected to the extent of another £500,000 by these successful results, that more acreage was under beetroot, that more beetroot was being produced per acre and that each little beetroot is containing more sugar than it used to. Anyone passing over the railway line in my part of the country and seeing the large trucks piled to the roof and over with this new product of our soil cannot but find that an encouraging sign. Since the Debate seems to be drawing towards a conclusion there are two observations that fall to be made on the form of the Estimate. In the first place this is the first Supplementary Estimate with which we arc dealing in which there has been an allocation from the Civil Contingencies
Fund. On such an occasion I think we have always to remind ourselves that this is the method by which the real limitations of a scheme of appropriation laid down by this House are relaxed in favour of a spending Department. It appears to me that in this case the allocations from the Civil Contingencies Fund were quite legitimate. There is no novelty in the purpose. It is only an increase in the amount for which the new funds are required. Nevertheless, it is a matter which requires the most careful examination on the part of the House, and I might perhaps ask the Minister what is the amount of these allocations, whether the whole amount is to be paid in the course of this year and whether the circumstance of the probable excess expenditure was taken into account in the preparation of the Supplementary Estimate at the earliest possible moment. There is another point to which attention should be called. This is another case in Which, owing to the manner in which we keep our accounts, the total of our Estimates is artificially swollen. We pay out a subsidy with one hand and collect the Excise Duty with the other. I think it right in this case to do so. It marks the temporary nature of the subsidy and keeps the machinery of the Excise in working order against the time when the subsidy will be discontinued. Nevertheless, the effect of this is to swell the Estimates this year by £1,000,000, though really that is set off by other amounts. The Committee will find encouragement there again, by realising that the net increase is not£450,000 but only £300,000.

Mr. W. HIRST: I should like to ask what administrative oversight is exercised in the expenditure of this money. I look upon the figure of £500,000 as being a large one which will require more explanation than we had from the Minister yesterday. There was a statement in the Press two or three days ago regarding one of these sugar beet factories and the chairman, in presenting a statement to the meeting, furnished in glowing terms a report of the year's working of the factory. It seems to me the Minister would be well advised to take into account the prosperity of some of these places and I join with the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) in asking that if you are going to have a Supplementary Estimate you
should receive something with regard to Excise Duty on the sale of these two articles. It would be much better from a Departmental point of view to say that where a profit has been made you should ask for some contribution towards liquidating the amount of subsidy that is involved. I am definitely opposed to the spending of public money without having some proportionate amount of control over it.

The CHAIRMAN: I think this will involve an amendment of the Act of 1925 and it is therefore not in order.

Mr. HIRST: If these firms get more prosperous as the years go on under the subsidy would it not be possible for the Minister to say to these people, "We came to your help in your time of need"? I am not complaining at all about that. I think we have a right to try to set up any department of agriculture which is going to be for the benefit and the well-being of the community as a whole, but when these firms get past the borderline of requiring the assistance of the State in their days of prosperity they might come to the aid of the Minister, not only the Agricultural Department, but the Treasury itself, which is perhaps equally important. A previous speaker suggested that the establishment of the sugar beet industry had put money into the pockets of the workers. Whether that is so or not we seem to be putting money into the pockets of those who are exercising administration over these Departments. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman would help us in that direction, that when the time comes and prosperity is attained we shall get something from these people which will not only help to put the Minister of Agriculture in a really strong position in the country, but will place the Treasury in a healthy position also.

Mr. GUINNESS: A great many questions have been asked. Some of them were ruled to be out of order, and I hope the Committee will understand that it is not altogether easy to answer a Debate which has caused so many breaches of the rules of the Chair. The Debate has, I think, taken a much wider scope than is really justified by the Estimate, because we are absolutely bound by legislation to honour the
agreement which was come to the year before last, on the strength of which capital was found for the factories and farmers were induced to make contracts for the growth of sugar beet for two and three years. That, I think, is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) and the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) when they suggest that, instead of coming to the House for more money, we ought to bring forward proposals to reduce the subsidy. I do not suppose those hon. Members themselves, when they realise what is involved, would seriously propose that such a contract, entered into with the general consent of all parties, should be cancelled in an arbitrary way as has been suggested to-day. A great risk was taken by those who put up the money for the factories, and I think it would be most unjust to deprive them of that subsidy upon which they have counted.

Mr. HARRIS: The right hon. Gentleman says there was a great risk. Has it proved a risk? Is it not a very profitable transaction?

Mr. GUINNESS: A factory in my own constituency last year made a loss of something over £60,000. But this is the period of high subsidy, and after the forthcoming season they will have to rearrange their system so as to carry on with 6s. 6d. less in the way of subsidy than they are now receiving.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: Would it be possible for any new factories to have the subsidy altered or reduced?

Mr. GUINNESS: It certainly would not under the existing Act, because the Act offers this subsidy to all corners. I think it would be very much against the interests of the industry that we are trying to establish at this time, when we are hoping for some result of these experiments, if we were to make any change in the system. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Commander Burney) asked about what he caled the continuous process, meaning a process which would go on all the year. Generally speaking, in this connection, the application of the term "continuous process" is to a factory where they start with the beet and end with the refined
sugar, and in that sense all but one of our factories are working on continuous process. But the hon. Gentleman was using the term in the sense of a process which will dry the sugar at one time of the year and enable manufacturing to go on through the 12 months. As he knows, experiments have been made in that direction. The Government built a factory which has now been sold to a company that is working it. I think it is very important, from the point of view of the permanent production of beet sugar in this country that these small factories should be made possible. I, have a great deal of sympathy with what was said by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) about the hard case of the smallholder who cannot get a factory to take his beet. If we are to get a satisfactory method on the lines of the factory established at Eynsham, which takes the tonnage of 2,000 acres against the 10,000 acres of the large factory, that would enable new industries to be started in many areas which so far are not -able to make the necessary arrangements.

Mr. PALING: Is the small factory referred to actually proceeding on the scale suggested on the continuous process through the year?

The CHAIRMAN: I think I ought to intervene. Would this development make a difference to the subsidy? If not, it cannot be pursued here.

Mr. GUINNESS: This new factory is receiving some of the additional money which is being voted, but it is only just lately that it has beer sold to a company and has entered into production. The right hon. Member for the Spen Valley and another hon. Member considered that we ought to re-open the question of assistance to new factories. The hon. Member who spoke last said that, seeing the profits that are made by the factories, we ought to take control of the profits and ensure the public getting a share. The public is getting its share of the advantage of creating this new industry at private risk. It is fully evident that those who are asked to put their money into this industry are not very well satisfied, at the present time, as to the probable results when the subsidy comes off, because only a week or two ago a new issue, was made and about 90 per cent. of the capital was left on the underwriters' hands. Judging by that
kind of evidence the State has not offered higher terms than were necessary to get this industry, involving a very large risk, established in this country. The right hon. Member for Norwich was concerned at the breach in the form of our financial business which was involved by borrowing from the Civil Contingencies Fund, owing to the looseness of our Estimate. I explained yesterday why it was that we cannot get to a closer figure. As a matter of fact about £300,000 comes from the Civil Contingencies Fund, and this is the first opportunity we have had for laying a Supplementary Estimate which will make good that deficiency. We shall, of course, do our best to get, the closest possible figure next year, but from the nature of the thing it is impossible, with the greatest precautions, to make a very close estimate.

Mr. H. YOUNG: Will the whole amount that is borrowed be repaid this year?

Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, the whole wilt be repaid out of these votes which we are now taking. The right hon. Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. N. Buxton) asked what was the effect on wages of this increased subsidy. Of course, it is impossible to trace any direct result. The argument was developed yesterday that in return for this subsidy the farmer ought to be in, a position to pay a higher standard wage than previously. The answer to that argument is that most of the work in connection with sugar beet is done on a piecework basis, and, apart from that, only a very small proportion of the total arable area is under sugar beet at one time. I have had figures taken out for 10 administrative counties which grow the heaviest proportion of the crop, and even there sugar beet is now only representing 2.1 per cent. of the cultivated area. It would be quite impossible to base on only a 50th part of your cultivated area any general increase in the standard wage on account of sugar beet. But hon. Members opposite can feel satisfied that labour is getting its share, because its workers are earning in the county I represent, where there is a great deal of sugar beet grown, from 40s. to 50s. a week in this seasonal work, and, as they know, that is very much in advance of the ordinary standard agricultural wage.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I take it that that is confined to the two operations of thinning and lifting.

Mr. GUINNESS: It is thinning, singling, hoeing and lifting. It is not only the casual worker who is paid at these time rates, but also the man permanently employed on the farm who is looking after the labour, and naturally enjoys the same advantages.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: How many hours are they working for the 40s. to 50s.?

Mr. GUINNESS: I really could not tell the hon. Member. The total varies. This did not happen in my own county, but I know that in the early days of the sugar beet, when it was being grown in Norfolk, the local workers did not feel inclined to work the long hours that were being worked by the Dutch who had come over in order to show them how to carry on this new industry. The Englishmen knocked off earlier. When they came back they found that the foreign workers had been continuing at work throughout Sunday. The English workers said: "It is a. monstrous thing that you have gone on working like this. We do not think it right to work on Sundays." Their answer was: "Almighty God lets the weeds grow on Sundays." In other countries where sugar beet is grown there is every reason for great pressure of work during the season. The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) was very gloomy as to the future of this industry. He was convinced that it would not be possible for the industry to stand any decrease in the subsidy, and said that any reduction in the farmers' receipts would inevitably be reflected in the wages. That was a very interesting statement from him, because I understood him to make the valuable admission that the farmers are now paying as much as they can afford out of this high subsidy. I think there is no doubt that, unless we can improve the methods of cultivation and hence the yield and the sugar content, the industry will not be able to carry on with the same prosperity to the three parties concerned.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The right hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent me. What I did say was that if the argument of the hon. and gallant Member whom I followed held good, what became of the claim that the development of the industry would mean higher wages?

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member said that any reduction would mean an inevitable decrease in wages. I think he used the word "inevitably," for I took a very careful note of it. Surely that must mean that the farmer is paying all that he can pay now; otherwise a. reduction would not compel him to pay less.

Mr. ALEXANDER: You will see what I said in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. GUINNESS: I believe that the increase in yield in sugar content which has shown itself may well make up for the loss of the subsidy next year, and may enable high wages to be paid, even as they are paid now in Canada. In Canada, wages are much higher than in this country, and that is possible there because the yield of sugar beet has reached 11 tons per acre on the average against the 8.7 tons per acre which we estimate will be achieved this year in this country. The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) asked about the yield in various years. In 1925 we got a yield of 7.8 tons per acre, and the yield for 1926 is estimated at 8.7 tons per acre. The sugar content last year was 16.36; this year we hope it will work out at about 17. He also asked about the yield in Holland. Holland happens to have the highest yield of any country, and in the last year for which the figures have been published they achieved 13.4 tons per acre. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) spoke of a yield of 17 tons per acre, but I think he must have been confusing yield with sugar content.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: No, I merely repeated a statement made by an hon. and gallant Member on the other side, who gave figures of 14, 16 and even 18 tons.

Mr. GUINNESS: I think there must be a misunderstanding. The hon. Member for Don Valley asked whether this industry was causing any increase of employment. There again we have no accurate means of measuring, hut we do find, in the returns which are made on 4th June every year, that on the 4th June, 1926, there was an increase of 14,000 regular workers compared with 1925, and I do not think it is unreasonable to attribute a good deal of that advance to the new suger beet industry. Of course, sugar beet is only one crop in
the rotation and it is impossible accurately to estimate the amount of labour which may be due to it; but I think the hon. Member would be quite safe in saying that in the Eastern Counties and in the purely arable areas, a good deal of land would have gone out of cultivation and there would have been a great loss of employment had it not been for this new possibility in agriculture.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Do the 14,000 extra workers in rural areas include the workmen employed in the beet factories?

Mr. GUINNESS: No, the figure refers to purely agricultural workers and is taken from the returns which are furnished every year by farmers. I was just coming to the question of the factories. The figures there should also be credited by the hon. Member to this new industry. According to our latest returns, over and above those who are employed in producing the crops, there are 6,500 employed in the factories, and of these about 700 are employed all the year round. The hon. Member also asked a question about the employment which was given in the engineering trade in producing machinery, and he asked whether we had made any exemptions from the rule laid down in the Act that 75 per cent, of the machinery had to be produced in this country. We have made no more exemptions. When the Act was passed, the hon. Member will recall that two factories were already planned, and in connection with these, the contracts for machinery had been placed, partially abroad. Owing to these contracts, the total of British machinery was 77 per cent. of the whole, but if you exclude these two factories, you will find that in the 10 factories which have been erected under the subsidy, the amount of British-made machinery is 89 per cent. of the whole.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with engineering, and, I think, the figures are satisfactory, but how is it that Mr. Van Rossum and his friends are buying all their jute bags abroad?

Mr. GUINNESS: We have no control over them whatever.

Mr. JOHNSTON: You give them the subsidy.

Mr. GUINNESS: We do not give them the subsidy. Parliament entered into a contract that, under certain conditions, a subsidy would be paid. There was nothing in that contract about where any of the necessities of the industry, apart from the machinery, should be bought, and we have no control whatever over any of the commercial operations of the factories, other than the purchase of machinery.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is it not right to say also that firms making agricultural implements have developed a great deal of new work owing to this industry, and that there has been a certain increase of employment in that respect?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think there is no doubt that there has been an increased demand for agricultural implements owing to this new industry. I was asked by the hon. Member for Don Valley whether I could say how far research had been able to improve the crop, and how I could account for the very bad result of only seven tons per acre at the start as compared with eight tons per acre at the present time—not 17 tons as was suggested. I think the fact of that improvement having been possible on the first results, does not indicate that any blame should be placed on the farmers in regard to their first attempt. When you proceed to grow a new crop in this country you have to discover by experiment the right time to sow it, the method of drilling the crop, exactly when it should be singled, and when it should be lifted. You have to find out on what soils it is best to grow it, and what fertiliser is necessary. It would be absolutely unfair to blame the farmers for not knowing all this before they had an opportunity of trying the crop. Without a subsidy to help him, the farmer obviously was not in a position to grow this crop or make the necessary experiment.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk asked whether the education efforts associated with this subsidy were having satisfactory results. I think I have dealt with the question on the producing side, but I must say that, so far, I do not think the farmer is getting the full benefit which he might from the consumption of by-products. It takes
a little time to re-organise the economy of a farm, and there is no doubt that we have not, up to the present, been able to adapt agriculture to the sugar-beet industry in this country in quite the same way as it has been done abroad. In foreign countries, they bring the sugar-beet back to the land. They buy the pulp at a preferential rate, and feed it to their stock. In this country that system has not been fully established, and though the factories offer the pulp at a preferential rate, I am sorry to say a large amount has been exported, because the farmers have not yet been able to consume it on the farms, and, in the same way, I hope we shall get better results when the farmers realise its value as a foodstuff.

The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he seems to be getting away from the Estimate.

Mr. GUINNESS: I was answering points which were raised in the course of the Debate, but I suppose I had better not stray further from the straight path. I am sure, in view of the sympathetic way in which the Committee have received this Estimate, that it is realised that we are establishing a valuable industry. We must all regret, especially at this time, any increased demand upon the British taxpayer, but I think in this case we are getting a valuable return for our money.

Mr. AMMON: I should like to clear up the point as to the figures of production which were mentioned just now. The right hon. Gentleman said the figure should be eight tons instead of the 14 tons previously mentioned. Is that correct? An hon. and gallant Member on the other side specifically mentioned a figure of from 14 to 18 tons, and when challenged from this side, he said that was yield.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I should also like to have this matter cleared up because the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) did make a statement that, whereas previously there was a yield of seven tons per acre, there were in some cases, he asserted, yields of 14, 16 and even 18 tons. It may well be, of course, that the average yield is 8 tons, and that he was referring to an isolated case here and there.

Mr. GUINNESS: The average yield is eight tons. The average yield in Holland which is the highest known was 13.4 two years ago.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that yields of 14 or 16 tons have been produced in any part?

Mr. GUINNESS: I would not like to say what is the record yield. I think I may have, somewhere, figures as to the best yield reached this year.

Mr. KELLY: The Minister in dealing with the factories did not give us any idea as to how much of this supplementary sum is being devoted to subsiding the factories and how much is being given to the farmers. I would also like to know why people who might be employed in the factories are excluded by reason of the fact that many of the workers in the factories are employed for 12 hours and more on end, without any break, and without any opportunity for a meal. They have to snatch occasional moments in order to get a bite to eat whilst engaged in these factories in this way. One cannot understand why an industry which is subsidised—I think that was a mistake, but I would not be allowed to proceed further on that point—is unable to provide better conditions of working. Why is it necessary to employ people for 12 hours on end when we have so many unemployed? Another question I should like to ask is, why these factories should operate under a system which refuses to take into employment people classed as agricultural workers Surely in connection with the subsidised industry the agricultural workers in the district should have the opportunity of entering the factories.
6.0 p.m.
The Minister made great play with a statement of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) to the effect that if the subsidy were reduced, the farmer would look towards wages in order to recoup himself. The Minister deduced from that statement that the farmer is paying the maximum at present out of his receipts. I do not think such a conclusion is justified. Employers, including farmers, always look to wages in order to recoup themselves if they think their profits are being interfered with, and the farmers are not paying the maxi-
mum at the present time. I would ask why it is that with all this assistance we are giving to this industry the conditions are so bad, und the Minister is not endeavouring to make them better.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I would like to ask the Minister a question on a point on which he gave partly an answer, but not, in my view, sufficient. He has given figures relating to the average tonnage of this beet crop, and he has also stated that the sugar content in the year 1926 shows a satisfactory increase over that of 1925. I want to ask him whether his advisers and reporters all over the country are satisfied that this increase is clue to better methods of cultivation and more knowledge of the technique, or whether it is rather due to the very much better climatic conditions that we have had during the past year. My recollection is that all the root crops have, on the whole, shown a very considerable increase. I know the climatic conditions have been favourable to the growth of all root crops, and I further know that during the autumn there has been a very great absence of frost, and very much less than we have usually had at that time of the year.
I am an intense supporter of the Ministry and the Government in this experiment. I agree with what, I think. was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G Courthope), that it is in the growth of sugar beet that the arable farmer has one ray of hope in a very disastrous period put before him, but having regard to the large increase of the subsidy that is asked for I want to say a few words. I do not think it is any use disguising the figures from the Committee. I thought myself—I hope I am not right in this—that there was some fallacy in the deduction made by the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), in deducting Excise Duty from the sum that is being asked for as a subsidy, because it seems to me that if we did not produce sugar here, we should import it, and the State would get the Customs Duty in lieu of the Sugar Duty. Therefore, we have to face the fact—and there is no use in shutting our eyes to it—that we are voting a subsidy of £3,200,000 for the establishment of this industry, and I would thank the Ministry and the Committee for this great encouragement given to agriculture
in the establishment of this industry which, if successful, will have a permanent advantage to agricultural districts beyond the conception of the ordinary person amongst us.
The only other question I should like to ask is this: In order to succeed in the establishment of this industry and to get the full value of this increased subsidy, is there any condition made on the factory owners that, while the subsidy is high in these early years, sufficient should be set aside for the reduction of their capital account, so that when the subsidy diminishes, and ultimately disappears, the factory owners shall be in a position to run their factories with practically no capital costs at all? If that be so, I, for one, see no objection to voting this increased subsidy, because I believe that by that means the industry has more than a fair chance of being successfully established, and I think the Committee may vote this increased subsidy with a light heart, knowing that the ultimate good is going to be so great.

Mr. GUINNESS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question he now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. RILEY: In view of the large amount of this Supplementary Estimate, I think it would be more to the point if the Minister had given us a. little information as to the real reasons for his asking for this additional £450,000. It is quite true that in his statement yesterday he did give one or two general reasons as to why he is now asking for this extra money, hut I submit that in view of the fact that when we were entitled to discuss the policy upon which this Supplementary Estimate is based, we were only asked to consent to the payment of £2,750,000, and that we are not now entitled, in voting the £450,000, to call in question the main policy, we are entitled to a full explanation of the real reasons which have led to this enormous addition to the Estimate, which represents, as a matter of fact, an increase of 15 per cent. upon the original Estimate. In particular, we want to know the directions in which the additional money is required, In his statement yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman said:
Besides the difficulty of estimating the acreage, we have this year achieved a much
greater yield—about an extra ton per acre on 130,000 acres under beet cultivation as compared with last year.
That accounts for some part of the increase. He went on to say:
In addition to that, the demand of the factories on the Vote has been increased by the better sugar content of the crop, which this year is estimated at about 17 per cent. as against 16.3 last year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1927; col. 843, Vol. 202.]
It is true there are two general directions there in which an account is given for the extra money, but it would be more interesting to the Committee if the Minister had told us what the acreage is and what was the amount of the increase due to the increased acreage and to the increased yield.

Major BRAITHWAITE: I should like to point out to the Minister of Agriculture that, owing to the larger yield of the crop this year, next year we may presumably, with good weather, hope for a further increase. The present accommodation offered by the sugar beet factories for handling the sugar beets will not then be adequate, and we shall have to provide, and immediately, more new factories to deal with the increased crop which we may reasonably expect
The CHAIRMAN: I cannot see what that has to do with the increase for the year ending on the 31st March next.

Major BRAITHWAITE: I was trying to show that the farmer is the man whom we are trying to benefit more than any other by this subsidy, and if he and the smallholder are in the position of having a large stock of roots on hand which are not able to be absorbed by the factories, it is going to he very serious from the arable farmers' point of view.

The CHAIRMAN: That would be in order on the main Vote, but not on a Supplementary Estimate.

Major BRAITHWAITE: From the point of view of the £450,000 that we are asked to vote to-day, I, personally, feel that we ought to be very gratified at the results that have been achieved, and had it been more we should not have grudged it. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), in his remarks on the subject, seemed to me to show a complete disregard for the interests of the persons whom we are out to benefit, and if he was voicing the policy
of his party, who are putting forward an agricultural policy to help the farmer, I am sure there must have been some mistake in his remarks. At any rate, I feel that the farmers of the country are very grateful to the Minister of Agriculture and to the Government for the provision of this extra money during a very bad year for the other crops that the arable farmer produces. It has been the one good thing that the arable farmer has been able to handle this year, and the small price that he has been able to get for his other crops has been in some way compensated for by the provision of this extra money which we are asked to vote to-day.

Mr. PALING: The Minister referred to the continuous process, but I think his answer was quite unsatisfactory. I think he said that a certain small factory had been sold to certain people, but if I gathered his answer aright, it was being run, not on the lines of the continuous process, but merely on the lines raised by an hon. Member opposite, of a small factory—

Mr. GUINNESS: May I make that plain? The British rights in the de Vecchis process were presented to the Government. Experiments on this system have been carried out by Professor Owen at, the School of Agricultural Engineering at Oxford. The de Vecchis process was also tested at a small scale factory built by the Government at Eynsham, The experiments having been concluded, that factory has now been sold to a company formed to manufacture sugar by a new process. The Eynsham factory is not working on the original de Vecchis process but is using additional discoveries which Dr. Owen has recently made at Oxford. I understand they are worked by what is known as a lixiviation process, which is in some way to dissolve the sugar out from the dried beet in contrast to the ordinary diffusion process, which is to boil the sugar out of the wet roots. But both processes are, I believe, continuous in the ordinary sense of the term. They begin with the beetroot, and they produce fully refined sugar.

Mr. PALING: I understand that better now, but I wanted to ask whether there was any research work going on in the direction indicated by the hon.
Member who put the point. He suggested that there was a possibility of a process being found for cutting and drying the beet, which would have enabled the factory to be carried on all the year round. It is understood at present that a beet factory works for only about four months out of the year. These factories are very costly, and everybody must know that a huge amount of capital is represented by one of these factories, so that for a factory to be standing idle for eight months out. of the year is a very costly process, and if anything could be devised which would make it a continuous process and keep the factory in operation all the year round, the overhead costs must come down tremendously, and that would he a great step forward towards making this business economically sound. I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether the people who are receiving the subsidy, or the farmers, or the Government, or anybody concerned, are making any efforts in this direction, and whether any research work is being carried on, so that in time we may achieve the possibility of factories working for 12 months, and so put them on an economic basis. At present, in spite of the success, the business does not. seem as if it will be economic when the subsidy is finished. The point raised this afternoon is very interesting and the idea of netting 12 months continuous work, would seem to he the best line to take.

Mr. GUINNESS: I would refer the hon. Member to the report that has been published of the researches carried out by Professor Owen. Obviously, it would not be right to express any opinion as to the prospect of the success of that process until it has been tried on a larger scale.

Mr. HARDIE: I would like to put one or two questions with regard to the additional sum required of £450,000. I wonder how much of that sum is required to attain the necessary efficiency in this new industry. I am quite well aware that in a new industry much can be learned, but I want the Minister to tell me whether there has been included anything which we or other countries already know. The question of fertilisers came up to-day. Perhaps some of this £450,000 is due to the fact that we have not gone as a nation should go, when spending
money like this, into the scientific side of beet production. Have those in charge taken as the basis an analysis of the ground and atmospheric conditions. It is quite easy for the chemist to add extra moisture, and to make up for the extra sunshine needed, and so get down to a basis. Possibly a goad deal of this money could have been saved if we had gone into the question of fertilisers. I have been trying since the Session opened to find out what is the amount of fertilisers used in this country in a general way. I can get no information, and by that I mean I cannot get the slightest information as to what is the basis per acre of fertilisers, natural or artificial. There is no evidence given anywhere.
If we are to have a scientific basis of industry, all these things should be tabulated, so that we could know exactly what we were doing. The analysis of a piece of ground does not cost very much. We have the figures from other countries, and it is the continuous laziness of the. British mind in this connection which prevents the application of these things. I would like the Minister to say whether any of these steps have been taken. Have you taken the moisture content over a year in British soil growing beet and compared it with that of other countries, and have you tried to find out whether the ratio of sunshine has anything to do with the growing of beet and the sugar content? It does not follow that when you grow a big beet you get more sugar. It is rather the quality of growth you want to see. The Government have got to go in for creative chemistry, because only in that way are you going to increase the production of any soil. I want to see the sugar subsidy used not merely for the purposes of sugar and molasses. Does this subsidy only go from the land where the beet is grown to molasses? I am quite clear in my mind that before this became an Act of Parliament we were told that the sugar refinery factory was not going to stop at molasses, and that from molasses we were going to take industrial alcohol and also a lower grade of sugar. Is any part of that subsidy, and any part of this £450,000, to go beyond the ground where the beet is grown and molasses?

Mr. GUINNESS: The subsidy is paid either on sugar in varying degrees of
polarisation, or, if they choose, it can be paid on the molasses as an alternative.

Mr. HARDIE: Yes, but will you answer my question as to whether there is anything paid by way of subsidy for anything beyond the molasses stager You say you pay on the lower grade sugar.

The CHAIRMAN: That would be outside the Vote. I imagine it would be the duty of the Comptroller and Auditor General to call attention to it if that were done. Under this Vote the money can only be spent on sugar and molasses.

Mr. HARDIE: The point I wished to make was that there had been neglect in these other matters, and I wanted to see whether there had been neglect in this respect. I hope the Minister, if he cannot do it to-day, will be able to give us some information as to whether any of these things have been really done, because it is no use talking about smallholders doing this. What they are doing, they are doing absolutely in the dark. The smallholder gets a piece of land here and there, and it does not follow that that land will be suitable. You may have a man wasting his time, whereas, if you got all the information, it would be infinitely better, and would make for the successful growing of beet.

Question put, and agreed to.

FORESTRY COMMISSION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Forestry Fund.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I think this is an occasion when the Committee might have some more lenient Rules as far as afforestation is concerned, because we cannot get a discussion upon afforestation in this House. If we are to be limited by the ordinary Rules in this Debate, then the whole policy of the Forestry Commission and the practical part of their work will escape criticism and the attention of this House. This Supplementary Vote we are asked to discuss to-day is under the control of eight nominated persons, but the expenditure is not to be accounted for in detail.

The CHAIRMAN: I sympathise with the hon. Member, but I regret it is not possible to raise these questions now. He can raise them on the main Vote by inducing the proper authorities to get the main Vote put down on an allotted day. It is not permissible, however, to go over the whole ground on this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I should not attempt to ask you to allow me to go over the whole operations of the Forestry Commission, but I was about to draw attention to the Note appended to the Supplementary Estimate. It says:
The expenditure out of this Grant will be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
It is not to be accounted for in detail to this Committee as other accounts have been, and there is nobody in this House capable of answering for 'the Forestry Commission on this Vote. The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury cannot answer. He knows nothing whatever about their operations. When their witnesses come before the Committee on Public Accounts, they intimate, quite rightly, that they are not responsible to anyone in this House. Desiring to abide by your ruling as closely as I can, I trust you will turn a blind eye if I stray in a minute degree beyond the Rules.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot make a precedent.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I support this Vote, and trust I am in order in giving reasons why I support it. I will not stray as far as to give reasons why I think, in the national interest, it ought to be very much larger, and why, in the national interest, the Government are not doing their duty in bringing pressure to bear upon the Forestry Commission to conduct forestry operations on a very much larger scale, and on a basis which can be criticised in this House. Let me quote, if I may, two sentences from the "Times" of the 11th January, which, I think, quite relevant to this discussion:
The need for a consistent and progressive policy of afforestation in Great Britain itself is particularly urgent, more urgent even than it was when the Acland Committee presented their Report in 1918. This once well-wooded land, which to-day draws something like nine-tenths of its
timber supply from abroad, has less forest land per head of its population than any other country in Europe except Portugal. On the Continent timber is grown on one-third of the total land area; in Great Britain the proportion is only about 4 per cent.
The article proceeds to say that the operations of the Forestry Commission in this country are to all intents and purpose negligible. For these negligible operations, the country is being called upon to pay something like £500,000 a year.

The CHAIRMAN: Again I sympathise with the hon. Member, but I would point out that the Committee is not being asked now for more than £50,000, which is for certain specified items, which are put down on the Paper, and the discussion must be confined to those items.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Perhaps you could enlighten me, Sir? Could you inform me where this £50,000 is specified? The details are not specified in the Supplementary Estimate, but it is specifically declared that these details are to be accounted for to the Controller and Auditor-General, and this House is deliberately precluded from getting information.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that is not true. Perhaps the hen Member is being misled in his reading of the note in the middle of page 9. In this case, an unexpended balance can be carried over from the 31st of Match to the following financial year, but the items have to be specified precisely and have to be audited by the Controller at d Auditor-General. The particular items in this case are a sum of £7,825 for forestry operations and £6,000 for cottages and outbuildings for forest-workers' holdings. Those sums, added to the deficiency in prospective receipts, make £84,740 and the carry over from last year under this particular system was something over £15,000, which makes £50,000 The explanation is given on page 10.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I say that there is no one in this House who can answer questions upon these figures? The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has nothing whatever to do with it. There is no Minister of the Crown responsible to this House for the operations of the Forestry Commission. We can get no information, we can never raise a debate
upon it, and a great service, which in every other country in Europe except Portugal, and most other countries in the world, is a progressive service in face of a world famine of timber, and is employing large and ever larger quantities of labour, is threatened with being starved in this country. Leaving that alone, I will endeavour to ask some questions, though I know the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer them, because he has not got the machinery at his disposal to enable him to do so. All I can do to keep within the Rules of Order is to continue asking a series of questions which I know will never be answered. Seeing that an additional sum of £6,000 is required for cottages, outbuildings, etc., for forest-workers holdings, I should like to ask for how many extra persons this is going to provide forest holdings. Each holding last year cost about £529, including outbuildings, and as the total amount in the Appendix to the original Estimate is £67,000, may we take it that all that is done by this great scheme of the Forestry Commissioners for providing small holdings for men to work on part of the year while they are earning wages in the forest for the rest of the year is to provide for the magnificent number of 134? In India there are 6,000,000 human beings making a livelihood out of the timber forests etc.; in Germany there are over 1,000,000—in Bavaria alone 75,000—and in one Department of France over 30,000—not touching subsidiary industries at all. Here is a Supplementary Estimate asking for an additional £6,000 towards a total of £67,000 which is asked for to bring Great Britain up to the scratch. I do not know whether I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, under heading "E," it is proposed to deal with peat lands. Will he tell us if the Forestry Commission have made any investigations as to the possible profits to be made from the afforestation of peat land? Is it the case, for example, that on 10,000 acres of peat land we could employ immediately 5,000 men, on draining, fencing, etc.?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entitled to ask whether this Supplementary Estimate applies to peat lands, but he is not entitled to propose a scheme of afforestation.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I take it I am entitled to ask if this heading "E" deals with afforestation of peat land,, and if the right hon. Gentleman is able to give the House any indication of the numbers of extra men who are, or could be, employed in afforesting these peat lands; and, if so, what is the profit that the Forestry Commission expect to make at the end of 40 years when these soft woods will become available for sale? Can he tell us what wages are paid to foresters? Is it the case that it is 37s. a week? Is it the case that it kept so low as 37s. because the neighbouring landowners do not want it raised, seeing that if the wages paid by the Forestry Commission were raised the rate of wages on the estates of the private landowners would be driven up? Is it the case that foremen left in charge of important schemes involving thousands of pounds of public money are rewarded with the magnificent wage of 42s. a week, and is not that also due to the fact that private landowners are dominating the scheme? Is it not the case that out of the eight commissars six are private landlords, that they are all nominated, and that two of them are paid, one getting £1,650—

The CHAIRMAN: I have already pointed out to the hon. Member that that must be raised on the main Estimate; or it could be raised on the Forestry Bill, if it be brought forward.

Mr. JOHNSTON: There is a great virtue in that "if." That Forestry Bill has been on the Order Paper for a year and a half, and some of us have sat patiently waiting night after night to get at it, but the Government have never yet dared to bring it forward for discussion in this House. I do not wish to go any further, but I know perfectly well that within the Regulations under which this discussion is conducted, must be conducted, we can get nothing done, that this is a farce, that the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer, and that nobody need ask questions because they will not get an answer, and that there will be no means by which this House can ever discuss afforestation until the Forestry Commission are brought directly under the Government of the day, as in the case of every other spending Department. I, for one, object to any Department which is spending public
money being a nominated body and out-with the control of this House, and I hope this is the last time an attempt will be made to bring forward an Estimate of this kind in this way.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I am, of course, smarting under the strictures of the hon. Member, but it is a great consolation to me to hear from him that though he has put his questions to me he does not anticipate any answer on my part, and has indicated that there is no obligation upon me to answer. What the hon. Gentleman has really complained of is not a matter for which either I or the present Government are in any way responsible. What he has really been complaining of is the constitution of the Forestry Commission. I do not want to follow the hon. Member in getting out of order, but perhaps I may give this much explanation. Whether it is a bad or a good thing that the Forestry Commission should be as it is, the fact is that the deliberate work of Parliament made it so. I can remember the Debates at the time. I have no particular opinion on the subject myself, but I remember the view being put forward, I think with very general consent, that in establishing this new body of Forestry Commissioners to carry out afforestation it was a very desirable thing to keep them outside party politics. For that reason, the Parliament of that day deliberately decided that there should be no Minister in this House directly responsible for the Forestry Commission itself, but that it should be an extra-Parliamentary body. My only duty and, as the hon. Gentleman has said quite truly, my only power is to explain the finance, and I am restricted to a very much narrower field than the finance of the Commission, being limited strictly to the reasons for the additional money now asked for in this Supplementary Estimate.
This Estimate has this much in common with the one we have just discussed about sugar beet, that in forestry operations it is extremely hard to forecast exactly the amount of money required from year to year. Take this £50,000. As you, Sir have already explained to the hon. Member, part of this sum arises from the fact that the unexpended balance at the end of the
year is not surrendered but is carried on to the next year, and becomes part of the resources of the Commission for the following year. Every year a forecast has to be made of the amount of money which will be available after the beginning of the new financial year for the operations of the succeeding year. It is not always a very easy thing to forecast, because it happens occasionally, as it happened this year, that, after the Estimates are made up in the Autumn, favourable opportunities for purchasing suitable land for afforestation, which had not been anticipated, present themselves in the Winter following the framing of the Estimates. Then the Forestry Commission spent the money which was at their disposal but which they did not anticipate would be spent during those months, and the consequence of that was there was a smaller sum to carry forward into the following year and to reduce the amount that was anticipated by £15,260 or thereabouts. That has to be made good before the end of the present year, and forms part of this Supplementary Estimate. There is a further sum of £7,825 for forestry operations. The Committee may ask why those items come in now. One reason is that it is very difficult to forecast, because forestry operations, like agriculture, depend to a very great extent upon the weather. It so happens that this Estimate was formed with the intention of being as accurate as possible, and it may be that we cut the Estimate a little bit too fine and did not leave enough margin for contingencies. Bad weather supervened in the Autumn in the North of Scotland, and the favourable conditions which had been anticipated when the Estimate was formed were not realised, and consequently a larger sum is required for the current year.
Another reason is that in regard to the estates which are purchased we had an estimate of the amount of land required for forestry purposes during the year. Of course, we had to anticipate the proportion of that land which would be required for afforestation, and that land had to be acquired so as to provide a certain proportion of cultivable land upon which houses and buildings could be erected for the convenience of those employed in the industry. The estates acquired during the year include a larger
proportion of land suitable for workers' holdings than was anticipated, and such land is more expensive than land for afforestation. This means that a larger sum was required than was anticipated when the original Estimate was framed and put forward.
In addition, there is a serious deficit in the receipts which were anticipated on the other side of the account and that, of course, goes to swell the amount which is required to make good the deficit of the present financial year. First of all, I should explain that in regard to large portions of this forest land it is the practice of the Commission to realise the livestock as soon as possible, and they have to make the best bargain they can. It so happened that there was a great slump in sheep prices, with the consequence that there was more than £8,000 less realised by the sale of sheep stock in Scotland than was anticipated. There is a still larger sum required for the sale of forest produce. This is one more illustration of the far-reaching consequences of the industrial disturbance of last autumn, because a very large portion of the forest produce is pit props; and in consequence of the temporary slump in the trade for pit props we had to make good some £10,000 that otherwise would have been realised by the sale of timber.
There is one other item which is still more directly attributable to the same source, and it is the sum of £2,700 for rents to make good the deficiency in regard to the reduced receipts from mining royalties in the Dean Forest, which otherwise would have come into the coffers of the Forestry Commission, but under the unfortunate circumstances of last autumn they were deprived of them. In spite of the deplorable ignorance which has been alleged in regard to this Vote, I hope I have been able to give to the Committee in rough outline the reasons why we are asking for this £50,000. I believe hon. Members opposite have not the slightest desire to hamper the operations of the Forestry Commission, and I hope they will let me have this Vote without a prolonged discussion.

Mr. W. BAKER: I am glad the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has been able to answer some of the questions which are interesting not only to hon. Members on this side, but also to hon. Members opposite. I believe hon. Mem-
bers who are supporters of the Government, and who are members of the Public Accounts Committee, will heartily reecho the remarks made by the first speaker on this side of the Committee, in regard to this subject, because it has come to be regarded as a very serious matter indeed that the Forestry Commission should be allowed to go on as it has done in past years. My first question is in regard to the £7,825, the detail., of Which appear on page 10 of the Supplementary Estimates. So far as I can understand that figure, it represents the total cost of growing timber. I do not want to criticise the figure, but I respectfully suggest to the Financial Secretary and his Department that it would be very much more convenient if it could be split up so that we could know exactly the cost of labour and other things, including material.
I should like to reinforce what has been said with regard to the wages of the foresters. If the wage of 37s. per week is being paid to these men by the Commission, I submit that that is open to very serious criticism, and should he dealt with at the earliest possible moment. I understand from the statement of one of the Commissioners that the Forestry Commission are pursuing, what they term, "a policy on an expanding basis." I am not at all satisfied wait the explanation which has been given as to what appears likely to take place, and I shall be very grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to obtain figures to show how many forests have been commenced since the Estimate was prepared, and what acreage has been added to the existing forests since the same date. There is a further point with regard to Section L which I should like to raise, and it is as to the number of forest workers' holdings for which land has been acquired, and also the average cost per acre of the land obtained for those holdings as distinguished from land obtained for planting as forests.
I hope, in regard to what I am going to say about the general management of the Commission, that I shall not be anticipating something which would come far more forcibly from those sitting on the Government side of the House. The hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) has put some telling questions on this question to one or the Commissioners, and I
gather from the replies he received that the Chief Commissioner is frequently away from the duties for which he is paid, for as much as two months at a time, and the Commissioner who was cross-examined suggested that, although he received a salary as a Commissioner, if he cared to absent himself for six months no one in this House had the slightest ground to criticise him. I do not want to make more out of this incident than can properly be made, but I say quite definitely that not only the hon. Member for Ilford, to whom I have referred, but colleagues of his who sit with him on the Public Accounts Committee, are dissatisfied with the state of affairs revealed in that cross-examination. I am glad this Estimate has given me the opportunity of ventilating this serious complaint.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I quite realise that this is not the proper opportunity to discuss the various points hinted at by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway on both sides of the Committee. I am rather sorry for that, because I do not know any other subject which so directly affects the rural parts of this country as this question of afforestation. I am satisfied in my own mind that this Supplementary Estimate will be passed unanimously by this Committee. I do not agree with the statement that the Afforestation Department of this country is negligent or that its work is negligible. It is a new Department, and I think it is safe to say that no Department of this kind has done its work so well or so efficiently as this particular Department. My objection is that it is not large enough in its extent, and I cannot think of any Estimate we could pass that could be more useful than one to enable the Forestry Commission to carry on its work more extensively in the rural parts of this country. I listened to what the Financial Secretary said, and nobody could have performed his task with greater ease or eloquence or accuracy. He very properly said that he was not the person from whom we could expect to get the sort of information that we, who are keen on this afforestation problem, would like to be given. I should like to see, not only the Minister of Agriculture on the Front Bench, but also the Secretary of
State for Scotland. There is not a single Member, representing a rural constituency, who is not keenly anxious to get first-hand information with regard to an Estimate of this kind. It is true there are very strict limits imposed upon us, but, within such limits we are, surely, entitled to get information which cannot possibly be in the possession of the Treasury. Therefore, I excuse my right hon. Friend because he was not able to give us such information as we should like.
I should like to ask, for example, where are those workers' dwellings which are referred to on page 10 of the Estimates. How many of them are there? and what is their cost? What was the purchase price of the land upon which they are situated? I should also like to ask how much of this money is going to be allocated to Scotland and what proportion to England. I should like to ask a good many more questions of that kind, but I think it would be useless to ask my right hon. Friend, and I would suggest that on all occasions such as this of an Estimate of this kind, which directly affects the Departments concerned, the burden should not be borne, by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but that he should have by his side representatives of the other Departments who can give to Members of the House the information which we desire.
I should like to supplement the questions which were asked by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) and the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. W. Baker). We read of new forests being purchased. Are they purchasing any forests in the northern parts of Scotland, and, if so, are they working in co-operation with the Board of Agriculture, because we came to the conclusion long ago that it is no good expending money in the purchase of forests unless you can do it in co-operation with the Board of Agriculture, who are in charge of the agricultural districts. Take a man who is settled on the land in Scotland. I think I am quite within the limits of order in discussing this on account of one or two items mentioned in the Supplementary Estimates. There is little use in placing men on the land in parts of northern Scotland unless and until you provide them with a subsidiary occupation, and the experts, will tell you, and
with truth, that there is no subsidiary occupation in the world so useful or so permanent or so durable in its value and extent as afforestation.
There are times, as everybody familiar with the country districts knows, when the smallholder is not able to work because of climatic conditions, when the harvest and seed times are finished. What more suitable occupation is there in view of the climatic conditions and land conditions than the subsidiary occupation of afforestation? Consequently, I should like to have seen the Secretary of State for Scotland in his place. I see the Under-Secretary is there, and perhaps he will be able to give an answer to some of the questions which have been asked. I for one support this Estimate. It will be noticed, as it deserves to be, that almost half the money which is wanted was lost by the Forestry Commission through no fault of their own, but owing to the declining rents and sales due to the mining stoppage. Accordingly, though on an estimate of this kind we are not able to express to the full our views on a subject which is so engrossingly interesting to those of us who have knowledge of rural conditions in this country, I think that the Committee would do well to Jet the estimate pass.

Mr. H. YOUNG: I do not want to take the Financial Secretary to the Treasury into the mysteries of forestry, but to deal only with a matter which lies strictly within his own province, and which he alone can answer. Let me say, to avoid misconception, that I am a warm supporter of the general purpose of the Vote and would indeed gladly vote more money for forestry under proper control of Parliament. We know, however, that there is this question of the representation of the Forestry Commission in this House. I can say that without the least trace of disrespect to the most distinguished member of that Commission who has so often greatly assisted the House on former occasions. The presence of a member of the Commission is a different matter from the presence of a responsible Minister. I want to give an instance of the little difficulties which it causes, from a phrase in this Supplementary Estimate, which I may say causes me the deepest apprehension as to the misconception of proper Parliamentary control over this expenditure. If I may ask the Financial
Secretary to turn to page 10, and to look at Paragraph 3—Forestry operations—he will find there this sentence, which apparently is intended to provide an adequate reason for the over-spending of the Estimate—
The provision in the original Estimate will prove insufficient to complete the planting programme.
I ask the Committee to agree with me and I think I may ask the Financial Secretary to agree, that this implies a most extraordinary misconception of the nature of Parliamentary control over expenditure. I want him to agree to this proposition, that this House does not vote a planting programme but votes money. If he will look at the original Estimate, he will find no planting programme. There is a sum of money for specific purposes. I do not know where to find the planting programme of the Forestry Commissioners. I imagine, if one wanted to find it anywhere, it would be in their Report, but the House does not vote the Report of the Forestry Commissioners. The House votes specific sums, with instructions fixing strict limitations for the year upon the spending Department. If one may compare great things with small, and compare the Forestry Commission with the Admiralty, the Admiralty comes before this House, it is true, with a complete and detailed programme for the year, but this House does not vote it. It does not vote ships, but sums of money. What would the Committee have thought if the Admiralty came to the House for £20,000,000 extra and gave as an excuse: "Oh, we were unable to complete our programme within the sums you voted." It is no less a gross misconception of the nature of Parliamentary control, as it appears to me, that which is to be found in this phrase of the Forestry Commission. May we press the Financial Secretary to impress on the Forestry Commission that a programme of planting has no authority from this House, that the sole and sufficient authority from this House is the voting of sums of money, and that they are bound to keep within the limits of those sums.

Major GLYN: There is one point in connection with the cottages and buildings to which I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Glentleman. I am acquainted with some of the opera-
tions of the Forestry Commission in Scotland. There they have been importing Belgian tiles, and they have been putting them on the buildings at the same time as the Empire Marketing Board has been asking everybody to buy British goods. I do think that is a matter upon which, if the Commissioners were under the direct control of this House, we should have something to say and to insist. Not. only that, but there was a very severe gale only three weeks ago last Friday, and these Belgian tiles were stripped off the roofs wholesale, and the wretched people were left with nothing but the stars above. I do not say the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for that, but the only occasion when one can draw attention to it seems to be this Vote of £6,000 which the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) has calculated will house 134 workers. It is to be hoped that the material used will as far as possible be local material, and that the construction of the houses will be more permanent than has been the ease in some instances, because everyone wants to establish people on these holdings, and one takes it for granted that the houses provided by the Commission are decent and proper houses.
There is just one other point. Owing to the gale recently in Scotland there have been very severe losses of timber in certain districts. That will mean that the market will be flooded with timber, and I doubt whether this Estimate will not have to be corrected in view of the destruction recently wrought, and the extra amount of timber which will be thrown on to the market. The chances are that the whole of the planting programme may require complete revision because one of the cheapest ways of carrying out afforestation is taking over blown-down areas and replanting them and marketing the timber. I hope this point will be borne in mind and that the House of Commons will really take control over the Department' of Afforestation, which is a growing Department, and one which every Member wants to see flourishing. It is high time that this House took control. Many people think that the Department of Woods and Forests deals with woods and forests. It does nothing of the sort, and even this House
of Commons has nothing to do with the Forestry Commission. If we can bring the Forestry Commissioners into this House every Member is ready to forward the entirely admirable work which the Commissioners have done, and to let them be assisted by the House of Commons to do even more.

Mr. BARKER: My grievance is that the Estimate is not large enough, and I feel tempted to move a reduction of the Vote because of that grievance. I wish we had millions to be devoted to this purpose, instead of the paltry sum we are discussing. I want to make an appeal to the Government to spend this money in my own constituency, in the Abertillery division. We have there some admirable land for afforestation. We have some very fine hills which used to be covered with beautiful trees, but they have all been stripped, and they are simply doing nothing there now but grazing a few sheep. We have thousands of men unemployed in my area, and they are receiving unemployment benefit and rendering no service to the country. They have been drawing their unemployment benefit for years, and I think the Government would be very well advised if they spent this money and a great deal more in my constituency in employing the miners on planting trees so as to cover the hills and provide for the future. That is one of the reasons why I am able with great pleasure on this occasion to support the Government, and I am only sorry that they are so niggardly and miserly in their expenditure on this very useful, national service. I do strongly appeal to the hon. Member for Monmouth (Sir C. Forestier-Walker), wins is a Commissioner of Forestry, and knows my constituency well. He is a Monmouthshire man and ought to have sympathy with my people, and I hope I may touch a tender chord in his heart and get him to spend some of this money in the Abertillery division.

Mr. DUNCAN: I should like to express my regret at the contemptuous way in which the House has been treated in a matter of this kind. I do not blame the Financial Secretary in the slightest; I think he has carried out his duties completely, and has given as full an explanation of the actual figures as anyone might desire; but, surely, the question of afforestation is a very important one for the
people of this country. The afforestation carried on in this country is of a microscopic character, and no information is given to the House about it. We are treated like a lot of school-boys or students who could not by any stretch of imagination be expected to take the slightest interest in a subject of this importance. All that we are asked to do is to set a side a certain amount of money in order that some degree—Heaven only knows how much—of afforestation may take place. I know to some small extent the work that has been done, and that work is very praiseworthy; but it seems to me monstrous that Members of the House of Commons should be kept in absolute ignorance as to the number of men employed, the amount of afforestation that has taken place, and the number of acres that are under afforestation now. Surely this information might be given to the Committee, in order that they might have that little added interest in The question, and might be treated as though they possessed some degree of intelligence. I thought it was only right that I should make some protest at the contemptuous manner in which Members of the House of Commons are treated on this question. I do not know whether we are under—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member must not use that particular phrase in referring to the action of Parliament. He may criticise it, but it is not in order to speak of the action of Parliament in that way.

Mr. DUNCAN: That I quite understand, but I am only endeavouring to point out that it seems to me unfair and unreasonable that such a paucity of information should be given to the House when they are granting this money for afforestation. That is my complaint, and I hope the result of my complaint, and of complaints made by others, will at least indicate, to those who may have some influence in this matter, that in the future the House should be treated with a little more respect, and that information should be given to the House so that Members may at least be allowed to take some interest in this question, which is one of very great importance to thousands of people in this country.

Major Sir ARCHIEIALD SINCLAIR: There are one or two points that I wanted to raise which I think have not been
raised up to the present. There seems to me to be some inconsistency between this loss on sales of livestock and the expansion in the planting programme. The right hon. Gentleman explained that there had been a considerable drop in sheep prices, which, of course, is quite true, and I have no doubt that a certain amount of this loss is due to the fact that lower prices have been received, for such sheep as have been sold, than were anticipated. But it is explained in the Estimate that the greater part of the loss is due to larger stocks having been kept in hand, having been kept off' a bad market and not being sold. If that be so, surely it means that a great deal of land that would otherwise have been available for planting has been kept under sheep, and it seems very inconsistent that, while you are keeping that land under sheep for the purpose of selling them in a favourable market, more land should still be planted than was originally anticipated. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain how those two things are possible.
The next point that I wanted to mention was what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Young) said about the importance of financial control, and of seeing that money voted in one year was spent in that year and not in any other. I have rat at the feet of the right hon. Gentleman in connection with these matters of the control of finance by this House and by the Treasury, and there is no one who speaks on that subject with greater authority. I would suggest, however, that, in the peculiar circumstances of the Forestry Commission's activities, seeing that they are largely dependent upon climatic conditions, it is very important that an exception should be made—which should by no means constitute a precedent—having regard to the conditions of the particular problem which the Forestry Commissioners have to face; and that within certain limits, to be strictly laid down by the House, a certain amount of freedom should be allowed in their case. I would not even go so far as to call it an exception, but would say that they should be given some law, some latitude in the carrying out of their operations. From the point of view of public expenditure, if a certain amount of money is to be spent on planting a certain area, it is very much better, if conditions happen to be favourable in one year, that more money should be spent in
that year in planting under the most favourable economic conditions, and that less should be spent in some less favourable year. If a limit is placed on the amount that may be spent in the favourable year, it may mean that more money may have to be voted next year to complete the operation, possibly under less favourable conditions. I hope, therefore, it will be borne in mind that, in regard to forestry, some latitude is necessary in order to adjust the operations to the conditions under which they have to be carried on.
With regard to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) about the responsibility of the Forestry Department to the House of Commons, I must say I strongly take the view, having regard to the experience we have had since the Forestry Commission was started, that it is essential to have in the House a Minister responsible for the operations of the Forestry Department, and responsible for its financial control, who will speak with authority on the subject here. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), and several other hon. Members above the Gangway, have asked some very important questions on issues arising out of this Estimate, but there is no one, I am afraid, on the Government Bench who has the intimate knowledge of the work of the Commission which is necessary to give satisfactory replies to the House. My right hon. Friend observed that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under-Secretary for Scotland was sitting on the Front Bench, and expressed the hope that he might give us some information, but I am afraid that, even if he is willing, he will be unable to do so, because he and his Department are not in intimate touch with the work of the Forestry Commission.

Mr. McNEILL: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Baronet, but I should like to point out that I do not in the least object to his excellent speech as long as he does not expect me to reply to it, but he is really quarrelling with an Act of Parliament, and, if he thinks it desir-
able that that Act should be amended, the method would be to bring in a Bill for that purpose.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: What I am complaining about is that a number of hon. Members here have made speeches and asked for information on matters arising out of this Estimate. For instance, I associate myself with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty, and I u ant to hear information on the points he raised, which are of vital concern to me and to my constituents. If the right hon. Gentleman does intend to answer the points raised by my right hon. Friend and by other Members above the Gangway, I will sit clown in order to enable him to do so.

Mr. McNEILL: What I wanted to point out to the hon. Baronet is that his proper course would be to bring in a Bill to put the Forestry Commission on such a footing as he thinks right. When he does that, we shall be able to get a responsibility in this House which does not exist at present. Parliament passed the Act some time ago, and, if the hon. Baronet would like to see it repealed, he can bring in a Bill to replace it by another Measure.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I should like to point out, in the first place, that the opportunities of introducing legislation are very little, and, in the second place, that it is not for me to suggest, in a discussion on the Estimate, any action which requires legislation. was not suggesting at all that any particular Minister should be in control of the Department, or anything of that kind; I was merely indicating a difficulty that we have, and I think this is the only occasion on the Estimates where the situation arises that Members can get up in the House and make speeches which are completely in order, asking for information which is relevant to the Estimate, and yet there is no Minister on the Government Bench who can reply to the points that have been raised. It is quite true that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Sir L. Forestier-Walker) can give us information, but he cannot give it with Ministerial responsibility.
Before I sit down, I want to associate myself particularly with what my right hon. Friend said with regard to the development of rural areas. We must expect the Financial Secretary to the
Treasury to look at this matter from purely financial point of view, and he would naturally wish the forests to be planted where they will give the greatest immediate economic return. There is no other aspect of the forestry problem that would appeal to him—I mean in his capacity as Financial Secretary to the Treasury. But there has always been understood to be another aspect which is of great importance, and that is that the operations of the Forestry Commission should be used to develop the resources of different counties in the Kingdom. It may well be that there is, for example, an ample amount of suitable forestry ground which is more easily developed in England and South Scotland, but it is extremely important that, in counties where it is desired to keep the population on the land, like the Highlands of Scotland, where it is desired to stem the flow of depopulation, the operations of the Forestry Commission should go hand in hand with those of the Board, of Agriculture.

Mr. TOWNEND: I would say, at the outset, that the question I desire to submit is one that I hope can be answered, and it is put forward in that spirit. I am not here to ask a question to which a reply cannot be given, and for that reason I hope that an attempt will he made to respond. The Minister in charge of this Estimate told us that the first item of £7,825 was due, as stated in page 10, to the fact that the amount was insufficient to complete the planting programme because of the weather.
That was a point we particularly emphasised. I presume the maintenance charges include amongst other things the rate of pay to which reference was made by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). He stated that a labourer employed by the Forestry received 37s. a week and, on a farm, 42s. What I am anxious to know is if the weather prevented these men following their occupation, are these sparse wages continued? I should like a little further information on the question of the loss in receipts under Item C. The point made was that owing to the slump in the price of sheep this loss of £8,125 occurred. Is it not possible that in purchasing the estate and the stock upon it, it is the practice of the Forestry to maintain the sheep en the farm for a certain length of time,
and that this might have been anticipated and the loss to some extent been reduced? There is a further point on the question of pit props. It is suggested that the receipts were reduced owing to the coal dispute. Is this an actual loss? Ought it to appear as a deficiency? I not the stock still there and will not the receipts subsequently appear on the account? In submitting it in this way, is it not suggesting that an actual loss' has occurred, while, actually, the assets are still in the hands of the Forestry Commission?

Mr. McNEILL: This is a deficiency on the Estimate. We estimated for the year that a certain sum would be required. For the reasons I have given it fell short.

Mr. GILLETT: I should like in the first place to support the plea that the Commissioners should be in some way represented by a Minister who is closely connected with their work. We quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman has no time to study the price of sheep while he is at the Exchequer and I do not wish in any way to criticise him. I am only criticising the system which compels him to answer these technical questions which it is obviously impossible for him to know anything about personally. I should like to point out to him. that it is the Government who are responsible for the proper ordering of business, and if he recognised the unsatisfactory position in which the House is placed when these Estimates come up he might have said he would draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the point, and at some convenient time possibly something might be done to remedy it. In the last year before the accounts we are now considering there was a very large Supplementary Estimate brought in dealing with this very question, running into six figures, and it showed how important it is that there should be a Minister who can answer—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Anything of that nature that the hon. Member suggests would need fresh legislation and he cannot pursue that subject on this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. GILLETT: I was pointing out that we now have a Supplementary Estimate and that in a previous year we have also had Supplementary Estimates, and I submit that I should be in order in laying
stress on the point because there is nothing new in this Department in having Supplementary Estimates. I hope the Treasury will bear that in mind, whatever it involves in the way of remedying the difficulty. In regard to the sheep, I should like to ask whether it is correct about it being a lost amount. The right hon. Gentleman stated that of course it meant that the Estimate in regard to the sale of sheep had not been realised, but we do not know how much profit they had expected to obtain on the sale of the sheep. It might not actually have been a loss but only a failure to realise the Estimate which had been put down originally. I should like to ask whether this Supplementary Estimate has anything to do with the school that is run in connection with the forestry industry and whether the number of pupils in that school are as many as they require. I think there is a sum for advances to the workers included under the Estimate, but I believe it will come under another heading. May I take it that there are no advances in this Estimate? I gather from the Report of the Public Accounts Committee that money is advanced free of interest for the workers to provide themselves with land or houses. I understand there is nothing involved in this Estimate for advances. I want to ask whether the reports the Minister has satisfy him that there are enough men coming forward to undertake this work. One of the things we are arranging for is the provision of a larger number of houses. In one of the reports presented to the Public Accounts Committee at their meeting last year we were told one of the chief difficulties of this branch of the work is to find efficient men. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has any information on that point and whether they are satisfied that they are getting the class of men they want which justifies them in spending this money.

Mr. HARDIE: I want, first of all, to join in the protest against the system under which we cannot get into touch with those who are really responsible. Perhaps as the result of to-night's test we shall get into telepathic communication with them, and get a reply in the same way. One thing I was struck with not make any reference to a statement was that the right hon. Gentleman did
from this side in regard to the defaulting attendances on the part of some of those who are Commissioners. It seems to me a very dangerous thing that we have no direct grip of this, and that we should have anyone taking advantage of that fact by staying away from the business. The Government ought to say, "Until we get to know, there is no more money," or, "You are no longer a Commissioner." We ought to get on some basis to deal with those who are in that position. With regard to cottages and outbuildings, have any efforts been made on the part of those conducting this business to use home-grown timber, especially from the local areas, or have they done anything in the way of finding out whether the timber grown locally is giving a good, comfortable house and standing the weather conditions that generally obtain? I wonder if the hon. Gentleman in charge realised, when the question of pit props came up, that you could not have any loss in regard to them. The stoppage only meant filling up the stocks. I suggest to the Commissioners that a tree without sap is a much more valuable thing than a tree with sap. I have seen thousands of pit props underground, and when we were in a dangerous place we always looked for one without sap. Since the stoppage, these props, which were not having a ready sale, have been stored in a propel place and you are ping to make more if you watch that market than you would in the ordinary way. I take it from the note that the stocks have been accumulated and there will be no actual loss. If that is not so, I should like to have the position explained.

Mr. McNEILL: Of course, that may be so. I hope it is, but we have to get the money by 31st March.

Mr. HARDIE: I know, and in view of the time I think we can manage that. I think what gave the impetus to the need for this extra money was not only the question of unemployment. This question came before the question of unemployment. The denuding of the world's timber is making it more and more important. I am not quarrelling with the sum of money. Take the American timber business. Take the average daily paper in New York. It takes 2,000 acres of timber every year to keep it going. There is going to be a
competition between industry and paper as to who is going to get the timber. That brings us into a very hot place in this country because for our building we depend largely on timber coming from abroad. I wonder whether the sum asked for here has been based upon a consideration of that or whether they consider that the sum ought to have been 10 times bigger to go on planting in damp places where we might grow hard wood. I should like to know if before they brought this Estimate forward they had gone into the whole consideration of all these things in the hope that by giving us a full survey of the business and giving us an expert opinion in regard to the forests, we might at the same time have something basic on which to spend even 50 times the sum asked for now.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There are one or two observations I would like to make. I particularly address myself to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who looks after the interests of the forests. He must liken himself in this matter to Napoleon. Napoleon at the height of his power was famous for his military victories. Later, when the world was pacific again, he was famous for his code of law—the code Napoleon. To-day he is remembered in France with the most gratitude because of his forestry. He planted the great French provinces of Bayonne and Biscay.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is rather remote from the Estimate. I hope he will get to it sooner or later.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was on the point of reaching it. These forests now are one of the greatest assets the French people have and they are able, curiously enough, to undersell, in the way of pit props, the Scandinavian and Russian countries. You can get pit props in South Wales and Yorkshire, which were planted in these French forests a hundred years ago by Napoleon more cheaply than from Norway, Sweden or Russia. I welcome this Supplementary Estimate. I wish the £50,000 were £500,000. I believe these is no better investment at the present time than tree planting. The only blot that I see is that, as usual, excuses are made in regard to losses, which are said to be due to the
stoppage in the coal mining industry. Hon. Members who have spoken have shown that that is fictitious and I hope the losses will prove to be fictitious.

Mr. McNEILL: It is the Commissioners.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not understand the method of bookkeeping of the Forestry Commissioners. Of course there is no loss made if the accounting is correct. This is where I think a saving can be effected. I see that a certain amount of expenditure figures under Sub-head L—£6,000—for cottages and out-buildings, etc., for forest workers' holdings. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Financial Secretary, or the Forestry Commissioner whether wood is used for building these houses. If it is not, it ought to be. Timber houses. are very comfortable, beautiful and. hygienic, and would be the cheapest material for buildings for forest workers. All over the world where forestry is engaged in on a. great scale it is used. The most scientific forestry is seen in Germany; I have visited some of the German forests, which are models of efficiency. The houses there of the forest foremen, men who are in highly paid positions, are very often made of timber. They are excellent houses. I believe the use of wood. has been adopted on a small scale in this country and I hope it will become the general practice.
There is undoubtedly a timber shortage coming on the world. The shortage of wood for pulping purposes and for paper-making is very large. Soon a time will come when there will not be enough paper to print the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Or the "Daily Herald."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, the "Daily Herald" always gets it from Russia. The hon. Gentleman will know that they have the good sense to, buy in a labour market and it is a very good thing that Russian timber comes. in. There is also a large increase in the. use of wood for textile industries and in the making of artificial silk. For all these reasons—and I am supported by expert advice on this matter—there is a possible shortage of timber in the world. Therefore, I say to the hon. and gallant: Member for Monmouth (Sir Leolin
Forestier-Walker), "Take courage." I regret that he is not in a position to answer authoritatively 'because of the curious constitution of the Forestry Commission; but he can go down to history, not because of the great military exploits which be has accomplished, but he will be remembered with gratitude because, like Napoleon, he planted the open spaces with trees.

Sir LEOLIN FORESTIER-WALKER (Forestry Commissioner): I can only assure the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) that we are endeavouring to copy Napoleon as far as is possible. We are quite aware of the acute shortage of timber all over the world, but, if any complaints are made in this House as to why schemes are not larger, and no more money is spent on them, I can only assure hon. Members that they must blame themselves. Parliament laid it down, in the Forestry Act, 1919, that certain sums of money should be allocated for periods. The Forestry Act was the result of the Acland Report, which suggested that a Forestry Commission should plant 150,000 acres on an expanding programme over a period of 10 years. They provided £3,500,000 for that purpose, although it will be recognised that the pre-War price of planting is by no means equal to the present price. That is all Parliament has given us and, therefore, if any hon. Member is grumbling at the lack of money, Parliament is alone to blame.
If hon. Members can get a little more out of the Treasury, the Forestry Commission will be deeply grateful. A lot of questions have been asked me, and perhaps I had better take some of the latest first. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull asked about timber houses. We are not building timber houses, as one who has had very considerable experience in timber houses, I can tell him that there is no economy whatever in timber house building. I have lived for many years in a timber house. Most people in this country do not like timber houses; they think they are full of fleas, and they generally are. An hon. Member of this House, who is chairman of the English Advisory Committee, sent in a suggestion that we should try to build houses with what is
called rough timber, which however practically costs the same as a brick house, and I think, of the two, a brink house is the preferable.
I have also been asked whether we were making experiments in planting peat land. An hon Member suggested that we should employ 10,000 men to plant all the peat bogs that we could. We are experimenting in several places in Scotland in planting peat land, but that experiment has really not yet given us sufficient knowledge. Until we have sufficient experience, we should be extremely foolish to launch out on any large expenditure or any large schemes. Another hon. Member asked about new forests in Scotland. We have no new forests in Scotland, as we have not, at the moment, obtained sufficient land for planting new forests there. He also asked whether we were in close communication with the Board of Agriculture in Scotland. I can assure hon. Members that we are in very close co-operation with the Boards of Agriculture, both in England and in Scotland. I am sorry to say that there has peen a remark made about the Chairman of the Commission, and also about the paid Commissioner. I can only bear testimony, as an unpaid Commissioner, to the excellent work which the Chairman has done and to the close attention he gives to his work.
I can assure hon. Members that even if he is away for a short time he keeps in very close touch with the work, and anybody who knows the Noble Lord will know very well that he follows the business very closely. As to the paid Commissioner, he is most assiduous in his work and knows it from A to Z. With regard to the question about land for holdings for the workers; that land has cost us £14 an acre, The land for planting has cost us about £4 an acre. We have now 2,955 forest workers. I was asked if they were paid at wet times. When the men turn out, and it is too wet to work, we send them back and pay them for half a day. If they do not turn up, they do not get paid. We have a sufficient number of pupils, although our work does not give us many vacancies As we extend our work we shall be able to employ and teach more pupils. We were asked if we had sufficient good men. Hon. Members know that good men cannot be picked up
on every blackberry bush. We have had some difficulty, because good men are very hard to get, but we endeavour to get the best we can and I do not know that we can complain more than anyone else. With regard to the amount of land under our control, we have acquired 488,000 acres, of which 285,000 are plants able. We have planted 78,000 acres, and we have 108 centres for planting, of which are in England and Wales and 51 in Scotland. Thus, it would appear that Scotland has a larger proportion than it is entitled to. We have completed 240 workers' holdings, 192 being in England and Wales, and 48 in Scotland. We are in process of erecting 108 in England and 54 in Scotland, which makes a total of 300 in England and 102 in Scotland—altogether, 402 holdings. So far as I can make out, those are all the questions which have been asked me and I hope hon. Members will now give the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the Vote for which he asks.

Mr. J. HUDSON: The Committee is very grateful indeed for the information which the hon. Gentleman has given us. He has certainly added to the value of the Debate, because he is speaking with a great deal of knowledge of the actual matter we are discussing. I appreciate very much the difficulties which the Forestry Commission have to meet. We are limited very considerably, indeed, by the arrangements in the House to-day, as well as by the arrangements of the Treasury. I am very much concerned about the difference in price between the workmen's holdings and the land that is set aside for planting. That is the issue which emerges in this connection. I suspect—I may he wrong, but I should like the matter to be cleared up if that can be done—that the Forestry Commissioners will probably have discovered that some quite ordinary land, which is suitable only for planting purposes, in the process of the negotiations which have gone on has gradually changed its character and that the landowner has been able to get out of the Forestry Commissioners, if not the full high price, yet the £14 instead of the average £4 for ordinary planting land. Although I admit that the Commissioners always do their best to hold back these rapacious landowners, cases have occurred where too much has been paid because the land-
lords have discovered what to-day is the general policy of the Forestry Commissioners.
8.0 p.m.
If afforestation is to be carried on successfully in this country, the land will have to be continuously divided, half and half, as between that which is purely under trees and that which is used by the workers to assist them in certain seasons through the processes of agriculture that they carry on upon the holdings allowed to them. Landlords are realising more and more that, although the mass of their land is probably only favourable for planting trees, by holding as tightly as possible to that land and pressing their claims upon the. Forestry Commissioners, based upon the needs of the workers, they are able to extract a good deal bigger prices than would otherwise be the case. If the whole truth were known, a part of this sum of £6,000 in Section I could be accounted for in the way I am suggesting. I would like to have more information regarding the estimates-for land for use for planting purposes. I should have imagined that, after the experience which the Forestry Commissioners have had, their estimates would not have been far out on account of seasonal difficulties. In some respects the Forestry Commissioners seem to have benefited very little by their experience. The hon. Member for Monmouth told us about the peat lands and the experiments carried on upon them. In 1924, when a discussion was going on in this House on this very question, I put a question to Mr. Acland, who is not now in this House, upon this very point, and his words were exactly the same as those of the hon. Gentleman, namely, that experiments were going on that, the qualities of the peat land were being carefully observed, and it was hoped, and so on and so on, that something might emerge from it. Apparently we have not got very much further in regard to this matter.
It is, after all, an extremely urgent question. There are great, areas of Scotland, there are the whole of the Western Isles, there are the tops and sides of the Pennines, where great peat areas are to be found, and the experiments that have been made cannot have been anything like thorough enough. That is probably due to the very narrow limits which are placed upon the Commission, and pro-
bably the hon. Gentleman who represents the Commission will not object to me raising this matter prominently in the debate so that the House may realise his difficulty. I hope that upon this question of laying out funds for planting and replanting the Forestry Commissioners will be able to be more exact in their estimates. We know that in the long run the work has to be done whether the rain comes or not; the work of draining, planting, laying out the land and laying out the nurseries, and so on, must go on whether the season is good or bad. Surely the fact that a bad season comes sometimes and prevents men taking the young plants and planting them does not prevent the Forestry Commission from arranging its work regularly so that year after year it knows exactly the estimate it can place before Parliament. I do not consider that the information which we have got from the lion. Gentleman has made us any wiser regarding this.
The hon. Gentleman gave us an account of the number of centres in which the Forestry Commission is working and in connection with which, I suppose, this expenditure has been incurred. He classified the centres, I think, under the headings of England and Scotland. I think it would have been well if he had told us how that classification works out. There are great areas in the North -if England in which experimental expenditure should be incurred and which are largely neglected by the Forestry Commission. There are many stations around London in the home counties. It may seem an unjust charge to make, but I have a suspicion that the needs in regard to forestry, in so far as villadom round London is concerned, are carefully attended to. The growth of pine trees in the residential neighbourhoods round London are very much more carefully watched than the growth of trees, pines or others, on the sides of the Pennines. As I look at the Forestry's Commission's maps—and they are very valuable maps—on which the centres are marked, I am struck every time by the small provision that is made for the whole of that enormous Pennine area where so much valuable work could be done. As I have said before, in my own area, in particular in Lancashire and Yorkshire, where there are so many men who could work on
afforestation if the discoveries were made that could be made by proper experimental stations, it is a great concern of ours that a better distribution of the centres has not been worked out by the Commissioners. I submit that for the consideration of the Commissioners, and I hope in the next few years to see more experimental stations in the North [...]t England.

Mr. HARDIE: May I ask the hon. Member who represents the Forestry Commissioners whether any draining has been necessary or any trouble has been given by the accumulation of water on adjoining lands?

Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: There has been no difficulty so far as I am aware.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell) rose—

Mr. ALEXANDER: I understand the Financial Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will reply to the points which have been made.

Mr. McNEILL: I think my hon. Friend who represents the Forestry Commission has replied to practically everything that has been said in the course of the Debate. I may say there is nothing unusual in the form in which this Estimate is presented. A certain sum of money was estimated and that s rim was found to be less than was required to do a certain amount of work—what is called the planting programme of the Forestry Commission. Owing to circumstances which I have described, it was impossible with that money to carry out all the work. One alternative was to go on with the work and come to the House and ask far the money with which to carry it on; and the only other alternative was to scrap that service altogether. So far as I have been able. to gather, that could not have commended itself to any part of the House. I think the House wants the work of forestry to be carried out as far as possible, but, owing to certain changes on matters to which I have referred in my earlier observations, we cannot always exactly forecast early in the year how much money will be required. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) seems to think that these operations should have been foreseen or that
the cost should be averaged, but, if you suddenly get 20 degrees of frost lasting some weeks over a, year when you are preparing for planting, it throws the whole thing out of gear for several weeks and probably for enough weeks to get over to the 31st of March, which necessitates a supplementary sum with which to go on to the end of the financial year. I do not think there is anything else to reply to, because my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth, who is a Forestry Commissioner himself and has a wide knowledge of the operations of the Forestry Commission, has answered all questions which have been put by hon. Members.

Mr. J. HUDSON: Can the hon. Gentleman make a reply regarding the peat experiments and the fact that exactly the same replies have been given us today as were given two years ago?

Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: We will not be able to give the result properly for nearly 10 years. We want a long time for that experiment. Trees do not grow in a year or two, and we want to know whether they will grow on peat or not.

Question put, and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Transport, under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, Expenses of the Railway Rates Tribunal under the Railways Act, 1921, Expenses under the London Traffic Act, 1924, Expenses in respect of Advances under the Light Railways Act, 1896, Expenses of maintaining Holyhead Harbour, Advances to meet Deficit in Ramsgate Harbour Fund, Advances to Caledonian and Crinan Canals, and for Expenditure in connection with the Technical Survey for a General Scheme of Generation and Transmission of Electricity in Great Britain, and with the Severn Barrage Investigation.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Colonel Ashley.]

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

SECONDARY EDUCATION.

Mr. SHORT: I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the Report of the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education on the education of the adolescent, and calls on the Government at once to take all the legislative and administrative action necessary to secure a universal system of post-primary education on the lines recommended by the Committee.
In submitting this Motion for the purpose of promoting the interests of and increasing the facilities for secondary education, I trust the House will consider that I have been wisely and happily inspired. No one will deny that the gravity of the problem of the education of adolescents increases in intensity and importance and calls for the attention and energies of legislators and administrators alike. In considering the promotion of this higher education we have to remember that the seriousness of the problem is accentuated by the presence in our midst of a large army of unemployed, and the inferior and low standard of living of the great masses of our working population. When we consider the desirability of promoting the interests of higher education we must also think of and seek concurrently to improve the standard of living of the workers, for the very good reason that those who defend the present educational system or our competitive system of industry must face the inevitable, vast, growing and insistent demand of an enlightened democracy that their children shall be freed quickly and in the future from the disabilities and the handicaps that are imposed upon their intellectual equipment by reason of poverty.
When we come to examine the conditions and the provisions existing for secondary education in this country, I must say that the picture is a very dark and dismal one and is a reflection upon our intelligence, and indicates in some measure our ineptitude in the past. We have between 5,000,000 and 6,000,000 children attending our elementary schools, and over 450,000 per year reach the age of 14, leave school, and enter the industrial market, competing to the disadvantage of their parents and the adult population. That in itself is a serious matter and a handicap. During 1924–1925 we had 1,145 secondary schools on
the grant list, and they provided for the education of 327,345 children. It is true that there existed at the same time 269 schools not on the grant list, which provided accommodation for 51,423 pupils.
While it is interesting and gratifying to know that 1,142 of these schools secured the full grant, having provided 25 per cent. of free places, it is also interesting to note that 149 schools were, allowed by the Board of Education to reduce their small percentage of 25 per cent. of free places. I suppose they had some special reason for that. It is to be hoped that they were good and sound reasons. Of our secondary school population there were only 142,523 children who are occupying free places on the 1st October, 1926. While the local authorities are permitted the opportunity of increasing free places from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent., it would appear, having regard to the disabilities from which they suffer through the grave condition of necessitous areas, and the taxes that arise out of unemployment, that some inducements might reasonably have been offered. The President- of the Board of Education in the Labour Ministry did offer some inducement, but I understand the present President of the Board of Education has withdrawn the inducement in regard to the increased grant. It will be interesting to know upon what grounds he justifies that change in policy.
Of the large number of children who leave school at the age of 14, a very small proportion reach our secondary schools. It is estimated that 9.5 per cent. go to these schools, two-thirds of whom pay fees, while one-third occupy free places. Only one out of every thousand of our elementary school children pass into or have, an opportunity of attaining a university education. These are striking and important facts which should engage our attention, and they certainly justify us in placing considerable importance upon advanced education. Out of 2,800,000 adolescents, 80 per cent. are not attending full time at school. There is another serious factor in connection with our secondary school education. It is interesting to know from the class of occupations followed by the parents of the children from whom these pupils
come, that in 1921—I cannot think there has been any great change in this matter since then, having regard to the poverty problem—when some inquiries were made, 26.9 per cent. of the pupils attending secondary schools came from the homes of wholesale and retail traders.
I do not mention that to cast any reflection upon their occupation. I welcome the interest hat such citizens take in providing this education for their children. But it is noteworthy that, whereas some 20.5 per cent. of the pupils came from the homes of skilled workers, only 3.2 per cent. came from the homes of unskilled workers. Those figures are a tragedy; they are a tragic commentary upon the inability of our working population to take advantage of this advanced education. We are told that where fee-paying has been abolished, it frequently occurs that the refusals of free places exceed the acceptances. I noticed that some time ago the Director of the Manchester Education Authority said that if all the schools were free, 60 per cent. of the children could not afford a full-time course of secondary education. These facts are an indication of our lack of interest, and, indeed, of the folly of Governments in the past, and in themselves I cannot help thinking that they are a warm condemnation of the policy of economy advocated and practised by the President of the Board of Education. It is clear that there is a shortage of free places, and there is a barrier, due to poverty, erected against the continued education of children of the working classes. We are spending some £250,000 upon maintenance, and I am sure we shall have to increase that considerably in the interests of the children of our working population.
I have said so much to indicate some of the difficulties from which children suffer, even if they wish to take advantage of this education. I turn now to make some reference to the Report itself. The Labour party stands for a systematic and continual process of education from the elementary schools to the university. We do not want higher education to be the privilege of a few on a selective basis, or upon some test or elimination. We want the opportunity to be provided for all. There are people who talk about the ladder. I have had some ex-
perience of climbing ladders during my industrial occupation. It is a very painful process. I cannot see anything in a ladder to encourage a student. I should prefer to see the unfolding at every step of a wider plane with a bigger outlook, and universality of continued education. This Report seems to indicate a fuller appreciation of our responsibility in that direction. It tries to create that higher education somewhere in the neighbourhood of 11 years of age. It will certainly save time if I summarise some of the recommendations of the Committee in this respect. They say:
Some form of post-primary education should be made available for all normal children between the ages of 11 and 14, and, as soon as possible, between the ages of 11 and 15. Primary education should end at about the age of 11+. There should then be a second stage, which would end for some pupils at the age of 16+, for some at 18 or 19, but for the majority at 14+ or 15+. This second stage should include a variety of types of education which would be determined by the aim of providing for the needs of children entering and passing through the stage of adolescence.
Education up to the age of 11+ should be called primary Education and, after that age, it should be termed Secondary. Many children should, of course, pass to the present "secondary" schools. It is suggested that the post-primary education should include the following types.

(a) Grammar Schools.—These would be schools of the present "secondary" type which pursue mainly a literary or scientific curriculum. The pupils would remain till the age of at least 16+. The school courses would be planned for a period of five or more years.
(b)Modern Schools.—These would include schools of the type of the existing selective Central Schools, which give at least a four years' course from the age of 11+ to 15+, with a "realistic" or practical trend in the last two years. Schools of the type of the present non-selective Central Schools, with the same general curriculum, would also be included; there would be due provision for differentiation between pupils of different capacities; the period covered would be from 11+ to 14+, but provision should be made for the needs of pupils who remain at school to the age of 15+. These Modern Schools would plan their courses for a period of three or four years, and, though similar to those of the Grammar Schools, they would be simpler and more limited in scope. While the courses of instruction in the last two years should not be vocational, the treatment of subjects should be practical in the broadest sense, and brought directly into relation with the facts of everyday life.
1030
(c) Senior Classes.—These would be Departments or classes within the public elementary schools, which provide post-primary education for children who do not go either to the Grammar or Modern School. These Senior Classes, like the Modern Schools, should aim at providing a humane and liberal education, by means of a curriculum containing large opportunities for practical work, and closely related to living interests.
Those paragraphs indicate what we consider should be the objective. It is true that the Committee made a recommendation in favour of increasing the school age to 15. They advanced some very interesting and convincing arguments in favour of their proposition, and they displayed some foresight. They realise that it could not be done in a moment. There was a lack of accommodation, a lack of staffing to cope with the added attendance that would naturally arise, and they foresaw the necessity of giving some notice. Consequently, they suggest a notice of five years, so that any increase in the school-leaving age should not be operative until 1932. I have summarised the attitude of the Committee upon that subject. Let me add that I represent a great industrial constituency. Ninety per cent. are industrial workers, and the majority are unskilled or semi-skilled workers, and are poor. They have a very low standard of life. Apparently our industrial system cannot give them a better living.
This Committee recognises, as I recognise from my personal experience, that parents are anxious for children to remain at school for a period beyond the age of 14, and no matter how bright or clever children may be they are undoubtedly handicapped by lack of means and by the poverty bar. It is a tragedy in itself and it will be useless to increase this age, even in 1932, unless the industrial system from within itself can improve the standard of living of the workers so as to remove the hardships and anxieties which now confront them. If that cannot be done, then the Government of the day must consider the making of generous and substantial grants in the form of maintenance. Something must be done if the education of these children is to be improved, and if they are to be allowed to take advantage of educational facilities. Something must be done to remove the possible hardships, so that poor parents may be able to view with
equanimity the prospect of their children remaining at school beyond the age of 14. Of course, it may be said that we cannot afford it, and I know the President of the Board of Education is very anxious for economy, but I think we could raise sufficient wealth to put into operation the recommendations of this report. Professor Marshall in 1913 said the small wealthy class of this community spent £400,000,000 on luxuries, and I should estimate that the amount so spent is now £600,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who can give £42,000,000 to the Super-tax payers, might reasonably be expected to find £42,000,000 for advanced education.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): £42,000,000?

Mr. SHORT: Yes, I think it was £42,000,000 per annum. It will be interesting to see the attitude which the Noble Lord adopts towards this Motion, because in April, 1925, the House passed a Resolution far more drastic and far-reaching than the Motion on the Paper, and the Noble Lord allowed it to go through, as far as I know with his assent, and certainly without a Division. I shall watch with interest how he reconciles any opposition to my Motion with the course which he took on that occasion. We cannot over-estimate the value of secondary school education. It produces a something, a personality in the pupil which unhappily is absent from our elementary school children. Its effects are seen not only in intellectual and physical vigour but in the quality of leadership, in character, in sense of duty and citizenship. It fits young people for the great duties which lie ahead of them and, above all—and I attach more importance to this—it encourages a love of the good, the beautiful and the true. No society can be without it. We have severe struggles here for better materialistic conditions, but a millennium of high wages, short hours and a fine standard of living would be of no use if it were accompanied by ignorance, We want culture and refinement, and in higher education I see a stepping-stone in that direction.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I beg to second the Motion.
I confess I do so with some hope. I hope that the Minister is going to accept the Motion which, as the Mover has pointed out, is milder in its terms than the Resolution adopted. by this House on a former occasion. I have ever held the opinion that an efficient educational system is the greatest asset of a nation. Without it, you have ignorance and where there is ignorance, rest assured there is disturbance. There can be nothing good in keeping a people in a state of ignorance. I want to impress on the Minister that, if we have a proper system of education, we shall have good citizens. If we have good citizens we shall have a good country and good countries make a good world. All that comes from education. I have been for long connected with educational administration, and I have watched its development keenly. I have spent most of my spare time in doing my part to build up an educational system which would be a credit to this country. I hope sincerely that we shall have something as a result of this Motion and that the children of the workers will get their chance of education.
When I first went to the Durham County Education Authority we had places for about 2 per cent. of our school population. By dint of grants and our exertions, that number gradually increased until to-day it is in the region of 7 per cent. That. we did largely by our our exertions. We were kicked and buffeted by different Presidents of the Board of Education and were told there was no real demand among miners for education. That statement was soon disproved. The applicants so outnumbered the places that we have now at least 10 applicants for each seat we can offer in our county schools. We in the counties are in a different position from the authorities in the boroughs. In the counties the only schools that we had were the old schools of the Church and private schools to which we had no access. Consequently, the county authority had to face the matter bit by bit. Secondary schools were erected in the country but, to-day, despite all we have done, the demand is equally great. To do justice to the children we found we must adopt a system of entirely free secondary education. I am glad that ever we did it, because, after all. that free secondary education has given that child who has
the brains a chance of getting into school without paying a fee. That has been a great boon, and I am sure that once the county has adopted that, if it is left alone it is going to continue free secondary education. I hope that all the counties will adopt the same course and free their secondary schools as the elementary schools have been freed. That to me would be one of the greatest steps forward that this country could take.
I know only too well that the Minister will say against me: "But you have not the places." I suggest to him that many of our schools that are used to-day as elementary schools could, with little expenditure, be converted into secondary schools for the time being until better buildings could be erected. To me the school and equipment do not count for so much. There are still other things that stand in the way and I, with my friends, deplore them. I think the Minister ought to take the advice given in this Report, and in other Reports that I have read, from other educationists, who in the same way point out that at 11 years of age there should be a distinct break and that all children who are fitted ought to pass forward to secondary education. In my own county we have taken the opportunity of trying to find out how many of our children were fitted to fake secondary education, and we find that in Durham if the right thing be done 75 per cent. of the pupils in our elementary schools at the age of 11 years could be passed on to secondary education. Even the Departmental Committee that was set up here, I think in the first year that I came to this place, 1919, and which was presided over by the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young), after taking evidence from all kinds of people, from elementary school teachers, secondary school teachers, and university dons, come to this conclusion, that at least 66 per cent. of the children ought to be passed on. The Minister should, therefore, at least accept the very mild Report that we have before us, arid commence a system of education that will be a standing monument for further progress inside this country of ours.
I am sorry that the Minister is doing his best just now to compel the local education authorities to cut down their education expenditure, for to save money on education is absolutely the worst
place at which he could start. Rather should he advise his colleagues in the Cabinet and in the other Departments to cut down expenditure on armaments. There is a saying which is worth repeating, that the nation of the future is not going to be the nation that we have had in the past, and that we have now, the one with the biggest fleet of ships on the sea, the biggest battalions on the land, and the biggest fleets of airships in the air. The nation of the future will be the nation that is best equipped mentally and morally, the nation that will be looked up to, and I am anxious that England shall be ready to take that position. We are allowing other people to take that honour from us. Other nations are going ahead vastly more quickly than England, and, therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to look ahead and see what the world will be in the next 40 or 50 years. I feel sure that, if he does that, he will do his best to bring his Department up so as to meet the need of making and equipping this England of ours.
I want to mention another matter. Up to now we have had thousands of children attending the evening classes and doing their best in their own time, for they have had no allowance from employers of labour of time off from their employment. They have been doing their level best to make themselves fit citizens of this country, useful people to get into the fields of industry, of education, of the arts, and of other things, but in Durham now they can no longer in the mining areas get the time off for attending these classes. I know the Minister tells us it is not for him to get the children into our evening classes, but I suggest to him that it is his business. As President of the Board of Education, he is charged with the education of the youth of this country, and if an obstacle arises, it is his business to clear the road so that these children may have their opportunity. In the years that have gone by, taking, say, the last five years, young men and women have attended classes for two, three, four and five years, and to-day they are cut out, and all that money that has been spent by the local authority and the Board is simply going to be wasted if something is not done.
If the position is as the President says, and he cannot interfere, I suggest to him
that- there is only one way out of it, and that is at once to raise the school-leaving age to 15 years, and as early as possible to make it 16 years. If that were done, the situation would be saved, but if it is allowed to go on as it is, ruin is coming so far as continued education is concerned. I hope the Noble Lord will tell these people in the meantime that they must not do as they are doing to-day, that they must give opportunities to release these-young people from their work so that they may attend their classes. If he does that, I feel sure that the people in Durham will be more than thankful. He knows as well as I can tell him that the classes are going to wreck and ruin and that many of them already have gone, because of the lack of time for attending them in the mining districts. It is only the children outside the mines who are keeping this thing going, and the terrible demand made upon the children by the colliery owners in the county of Durham is not only ruining their mothers, their younger brothers, and their sisters, but them also. It is a terrible score. Some day it may be told in better language than I can use, and I am hoping that it will be told. I want the President, therefore, to see to it that these children get their opportunities and to make representations to his colleague in the Department.
There is one other point I wish to make, and that is that it will be very much cheaper to keep the children at school until they are 16 years of age than to go on as we are doing to-day. The cost will be anywhere from £5,000,000 to £6,000,000. All my colleagues agree that the child should be at school, and his father at work in the- mine, or factory, or wherever he is called upon to work. If that policy be adopted I can see a great diminution in the very near future of the number of men unemployed. Do what you will, someone -comes along and says there is far too much money spent on education. They want to spend it in another way. The Amendment on the Paper says nothing at all. It simply says that it regards the Report as being so good that it ought to be adopted, but not at the present time. I think we have never had such an opportunity as to-day, in consequence of the depression in our industry. If the right hon. Gentleman takes this opportunity to free the
children from toil, and give the boys their chance in school, providing something for their maintenance, which you must have for miners' children, he will have done a great thing for the young life. of this country.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "welcomes" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
The fact that the general trend of the Report of the consultative committee of the Board of Education on the education of the adolescent is in accordance with the policy of His Majesty's Government and with the programmes of the local education authorities, and hopes that the committee's recommendation will assist fie Board and the authorities in taking all practicable steps to develop a system of post-primary education for children over 11.
This Amendment, which stands in my name, and in the names of my hon. Friends the Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) and the Member for White-haven (Mr. R. Hudson), is in no sense a hostile one. Both the Motion and the Amendment welcome the Report with which the Motion deals, and, indeed, it would be very difficult for anyone who cares for education not to welcome that Report. It is the Report of men and women of knowledge and experience, and with real anxiety for educational advancement, and it is written with fervour for educational progress. The Motion and the Amendment, have much in common. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) might almost have been speaking for the Amendment, for he made very plain the enormous difficulties which lie in the way of carrying out the recommendations in the Report, and I can assure him that, Members on this side fully sympathise will the difficulties of which he speaks, which lie in the way of a great many of the children of the workers, and we can only hope that the industrial improvement of this country will now take place rapidly, so that far more of those children can take advantage of higher education.
9.0 p.m.
It must be a satisfaction to the hon. Member who seconded the Motion that his county has an honourable place in the Report. We all know the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for education, and the great work he has done in his own county for education. But I may be permitted to say that the speeches of the Mover and
the Seconder were much more directed to castigating the Minister for his unrighteous economy than to dealing with the subject of their own Motion. Listening to those two speeches, one would have thought that in recent years nothing had been done by the taxpayer or the ratepayer for education. The fact is that in recent years both the taxpayer and the ratepayer have shouldered very heavy burdens in the cost of education. In the matter of pensions to teachers, the Pensions Acts in the years 1918 to 1925, and especially the Act of 1925, which was the work of this Conservative Government, have produced a system of superannuation for teachers which will compare favourably with that of any other country. The establishment of the Burnham scale, in conjunction with the superannuation system, has placed the teachers of this country in a secure position, and both the State and the ratepayers have shouldered a very heavy burden in carrying out those two reforms. There has been the development of central schools, which form the nucleus of that central reform which is advocated by the Report. There has been the development of the secondary system—a system which was established by a Conservative Government in 1902, and a system to which we may look forward with great hope for the future of this country. There has been the reconditioning, and rebuilding in some cases, of defective and insanitary schools. There has been the building of new schools, and in that connection may I read to the House a letter I received this morning from a. leading member of the Bucks Education Committee. He writes:
It is stated in to-day's 'Times' that on Wednesday evening the question of secondary education will be before the House. I wonder if this will give you any chance of raising the question of the cost of building secondary schools.
I would suggest to hon. Members opposite that they should use their undoubted influence in rendering the cost of building schools cheaper. He goes on to say:
The Minister said the other day that the secondary schools built in recent years have cost an average of £200 a place.

Mr. RICHARDSON: May I intervene for a moment? I know, and the Noble Lady will tell you, that a school we opened in September last in Durham County has the entire approval of the Education Departments, and was not at
all a costly school. I refer to Houghton-le-Spring. It is now filled to overflowing. We did our best to keep down the cost, I can assure you.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: What was the cost?

Mr. RICHARDSON: The Noble Lady will probably give it.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: My correspondent goes on to say:
If this is anything like true, I do not see how we are going to get tile new secondary schools that we want in South Bucks—
In addition to that there is the question of reducing the size of classes. That process has gone on continuously, and we have recently heard from the Minister that there are now 2,400 more teachers in the schools than there were in 1924. In face of these facts, it is scarcely possible to say that the Minister is unduly economical and that he is doing nothing. What he is doing is that he is continually improving our educational system. Let us consider some of the proposals in the Report. The main proposal of that Report coincides largely with what is found in the Prime Minister's election address. In that address we find:
The carrying out of agreed schemes as between the local education authorities and the Board of Education.
Here let me say that as between the Motion and the Amendment the differences are very small. The Motion says, "Carry out at once"; the Amendment says, "Consult with local education authorities and do all that is practicable." We must consult with local education authorities. Remember what they are. They are bodies which have been developed all through the country; they are becoming increasingly efficient; they include more and more men and women who take an eager interest in their duties. It goes on to say
—which shall ensure amongst other matters a progressive reduction in the size of classes, the improvement or, when necessary, replacement of insanitary schools—
And then comes what is the chief recommendation of the Report:—
the development of Central Schools and other forms of education above the elementary school stage"—
If the recommendations of the Report be adopted, "elementary" will be
divided into "primary" and "post-primary," and "post-primary" will then become "modern."
—with an adequate supply in the number of secondary school places and a corresponding increase in the number of scholarships and free places.
That is the central proposal of the Report, that we should develop the post-primary system for children above the age of 11 to the age of 15. With regard to the age of 15, I would remark that the speech of the hon. Seconder was not very relevant to the Motion, if I may say so, but he made up for that by going one better than the Report Iv making the leaving age 16 instead of 15.
There is one recommendation in the Report which, I think, will create a great deal of opposition. It is the recommendation to abolish Part IIL authorities. Those authorities have done, and are doing, excellent work. I have received this letter from one of them the Windsor Education Committee.
I am directed to bring to your notice the following resolution which was adopted by my committee on the 14th instant:
'That the New Windsor Education Committee, who have had before them the Report of the Consultative Committee on the Education of the Adolescent, recommending among other proposals the abolition of Part III authorities and the transfer of their powers and duties to the authorities responsible for higher education, are strongly of opinion that in boroughs and urban districts an intimate knowledge of local Conditions is essential for the administration of the public elementary education service, and that the proposals of the Consultative Committee referred to, tending as they do towards centralisation and the consequent abrogation of local autonomy, are in every way inimical to the best interests of education.' 
It is very important that we should do nothing to lessen local interest and local effort in education. I have spoken of the central proposal of the Report, the development of this post-primary system. We have a secondary system which is being developed on sound lines and is flourishing; we have elementary schools and we have, after the age of 11, central schools, both selective central schools and non-selective; we have junior technical schools and we have departments and classes for the senior pupils in some of the elementary schools, known
familiarly as "tops" or "higher tops." The Report proposes 70 provide schools to be called "modern schools" for all the children of the elementary schools, or the primary schools, from the age of 11 up to the age of 15. The reason why the age of 11 was selected is that up to the age of 11 the child mind is busy absorbing facts, picking up facts without connecting them. After 11—I am speaking of the average child—the child begins to connect those facts and to reason, and therefore you want a different type of education. As the hon. Opener said, the secondary schools have a literary or scientific direction of studies. The central schools, which are in future to be known as modern schools, will have, in the last two years of the course, a practical bias. We require in those schools a very efficient and special type of teacher, and there is a difficulty in getting that type of teacher. Let me quote the Minority Report, which was signed by three of the members of the Committee, one of them being the chairman of the London County Council Education Committee:
The desirability of prolonging education must depend largely on the character of the education which is offered.
They also mention the fact that the provision of modern schools means providing for half a million additional children and obtaining from 15,000 to 20,000 additional teachers. It is very difficult in the time to provide the special type of teacher that would be necessary for those schools. Those teachers have a great problem to solve. They have, as every teacher has, to develop the mind and body and character of the child to the full, and they have also got to solve the problem of turning out those children as youths and girls content to carry on their work in life, which for the great majority of all people in all countries must be manual labour. That is a very great difficulty, and the Board of Education recognises it. In the last Report of the Board for 1924–25, the first 80 pages are devoted to accounts of the Progress of Technical Education, and we find there that it is very difficult to get teachers of the right kind. We all know that the efficiency of the school depends upon the teacher, and, therefore, you must have, the right type of teacher. The greatest work the teacher has to do is to develop the character of the children. In regard to character, the chief points are not
the property of any country, but the best points are now the tradition of the British race. Some of those we find in the philosophy of Confucius. He taught that we should do to others as we would have them do to us. It is regrettable that the modern Chinese has forgotten this maxim. You will also find them in the oath taken by the youths of Greece, long ago, when they received their arms:
I will not dishonour my sacred arms; I will not desert my fellow soldier by whose side I shall be set; I will do battle for my country whether aided or unaided; I will strive to leave her better than I found her; I will honour the Temples in which my fathers worshipped; of these things the Gods are my witnesses.
In that you will find loyalty, patriotism, progress and reverence, and it is those qualities we wish to preserve and develop in our young people. We see great difficulties in the way of carrying out the provisions of this Report at once. We know the difficulties in regard to the final year in many schools, which is not always useful owing to the lack of teaching power, the exigencies of the curriculum, or other difficulties. I ask whether it would be wise under these circumstances to make the leaving age compulsory at 15 until we are able to employ usefully the present final year of school life. In this matter, let us hasten slowly. Let us build on a secure foundation, and let us remember that the object of education is to make good citizens who will take a pride in their work in life, and who will have the power of enjoying their leisure time sensibly.

Mr. CADOGAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
I cannot refrain from saying that the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) has stolen a march upon his opponents. I do not complain so much that we were kept in ignorance until yesterday of the precise terms of his Motion, but when I discovered the nature of those terms, I realised that it would be necessary for any of us on this side of the House who wanted to make any effective criticism that we should have to be well versed in what, for the sake of brevity I will refer to as the Hadow Report. Certainly, in the time available to prime oneself its contents would have proved to be a rather formidable task, and I should need some of that ingenuity and resource displayed by the right hon. Gentleman the
Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), when not long ago they argued upon a Bill which they had never seen, and which in fact and indeed had never been drafted.
The shortness of notice is not my only cause of complaint. I have another grievance in that the precise terms of the Motion are so completely at variance with its original form that they induce the suspicion that the hon. Member who moved the Motion was perhaps not quite so well acquainted with the Report I have alluded to as some other hon. Members on this side of the House, and that there is some confusion in his mind as to the precise definition of the term secondary education. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby gave the House a highly imaginary description the other day of a supposed controversy which had taken place in the Cabinet in regard to the King's Speech. I should like to retaliate by indulging in a similar speculation as to what happened between the tabling of the original Motion on this question, and the appearance of the revised version. When I saw the precise terms of the Motion and the terms of reference in the Report, which explicitly state that it should deal with schools other than secondary schools, I thought it was quite possible that the motion would be ruled out of order by the Chair, but I bow to your decision, Mr. Speaker, all the more readily because it suits our convenience on this side of the House. Had the hon. Member been allowed to retable his Motion he might have done so more adroitly and ingeniously, and then the Government would not have been in the impregnable position in which they now stand. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is all this about?"]
Let me say that I am in complete and cordial agreement with a very great deal of what has fallen from both the Mover and the Seconder of this -Motion. In theory and principle on this question, as on others, I often find myself in accord with the party opposite, and I could with a clear conscience cross the Floor of the House if it was only a question of theory and principle. When it comes to the application of theories and principles to practice, then T find the Floor of the House presents to me an impassable gulf. I agree as to what
social evils it is necessary for us to address ourselves to and as to what grievances are crying out for redress, but as to the remedy, I am nearly always at variance with the party opposite or, if I agree with their remedy, I differ as to how or in what quantity that remedy should be applied.
Here is a case. The hon. Mover has suggested—I notice he slurred over the expression "at once" when he was moving the Motion—that the findings of the Hadow Report,, with which both he and I agree, should be implemented by the Government at once. May I point out that not only do I disagree, but the Report also disagrees with that suggestion. I should like the hon. Member to refer to page 172, where he will see at the bottom the last sentence reads:
Progress must necessarily be tentative and experimental, but the objective—a universal system of post-primary education—should be held clearly in view.
There is a familiar ring about that sentence, "should be held clearly in view." Only a day or two ago I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer pressing certain proposals, and in reply received a letter to the effect that he would hold my suggestions clearly in view. Whatever that expression may mean, it certainly does not mean at once. Then the sentence finishes:
and the measures necessary to attain it should go steadily forward.
"Steadily forward "—the italics are mine. T have no doubt the word "steadily" was italicised, if I might use the expression, in the minds of those who signed the Report. "Progress must be necessarily tentative and experimental"—hut that admonition cuts bang across one of the first principles of Socialism and incidentally cuts bang across the Motion moved by the hon. Member.
I have always been careful to note at election time how Socialist Members answer the various questionnaires addressed to them. The framers of these questionnaires, I should imagine, are unsophisticated persons, because they seem to have a touching faith in those who promise all things to all men. What I notice about these questionnaires and particularly those on the subject of education is that they ask you to urge the Government, provided your Government takes
office, to do everything at once, and I notice that the Socialist candidates always reply that they will, as soon as their Government gets into office and power, do everything at once in the first Session of their first Parliament. Personally, I always reply to my questioners that I will hold their suggestions clearly in view. The Socialist party did come into office pledged up to the hilt to do everything at once and they fell in a few months' time. But I would like seriously to warn hon. Members opposite that when they ever come into power with a mandate to run amok in all our national institutions, they should. realise it is neither feasible nor possible to effect great revolutions, be it in education or other spheres of administration, in the twinkling of an eye.
But the very fact that the Mover of the Motion has employed the expression. "at once" convinces me that he has not read the Report of the Consultative Committee with the diligence one expects of a lawyer. I would ask him to turn to. page 178 of the Report and there he will find at the end of paragraph 19 this sentence:
At the same time we fully recognise that finance is a limiting factor and, as it is not feasible at once lo establish conditions such as we have described, we must be content to recommend the establishment of the best conditions obtainable in the circumstances.
The hon. Mover said he welcomed the Report. Does he welcome that sentence? It does not square with his Motion. I believe the Noble Lord regards this as an excellent report, but not for the reasons of the Mover of the Motion. It certainly does the Consultative Committee very great credit that it has reported, in my opinion, in such moderate and cautious terms, especially in view of the fact, which I believe is the case—and the Noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—that the Committee does not concern itself with finance. It is only right in my opinion that the Consultative Committee should have treated the Noble Lord with that consideration—I hope he thinks they have treated him with consideration—because they have borrowed his ideas.
There are few of those findings in this Report which were not anticipated by the Noble Lord from the very first moment he took office. Of all his
utterances on education, none showed in my opinion the measure of his wisdom and foresight more than the speech he delivered on the Education Estimates in the first year he came into office. I confess I have not read all his speeches on education, and of those speeches which I have read I have not read them all from the opening sentence to the final peroration. But I did listen with the utmost admiration to the Noble Lord two years ago when he introduced his Estimates. I think that speech revealed him as a statesman of vision. I could quote paragraph after paragraph to show how much he realised the evil effects of making a hard and fast distinction and division between primary and secondary education and the imperfections of statutory divisions of that kind and the anomalies to which they give rise. He has proved himself absolutely sensible from the first of the necessity of evolving a type of senior school which would not divert pupils from their natural bent. Variety and flexibility has always been his slogan and the report has borrowed it from him. Whether the Committee deliberately or unconsciously adopted his views it must be a source of satisfaction to us that at last we are rejecting that stultifying notion which was entertained so long by hon. Members opposite regarding primary and secondary education as if they were in watertight compartments and the still more fallacious notion that the endless multiplication of places in secondary schools—using it in its obsolescent sense—was the panacea of all evils.
I should like to say one word on the subject of free places in secondary schools, but. before I do so I should like to clear myself of that accusation which has been levelled against this side of the House on the question of economy. I think I remember that. the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Richardson) referred to it as our stunt. Let. me assure him that I hold that true economy in national expenditure does not necessarily consist in the ruthless cutting down of expenditure all round, or of establishing, as it were, a flat rate of economy in all departments. I heard a right hon. Gentleman not very long ago in this House complain that he did not see why he should cut down his estimates unless other right hon. Gentlemen cut down their estimates, pari passu, with his own. That is a
view with which we can sympathise, but, I do not think we can approve of it. There are three kinds of expenditure—that on luxuries which if there is any demand for them, those who demand them can surely pay for out of their own private exchequers. There were plenty of examples of that in the spacious days of the Coalition. There is the expenditure which we can regard as a form of insurance, of which the most conspicuous example is expenditure on the Fighting Services. Then there is, finally, that form of expenditure from which the State can reasonably expect a definite return, and in that category I should without hesitation place education. What we want is a statesmanship at the head of affairs which is capable of deciding where it is in the interest of the community to cut down unprofitable expenditure in order that we may maintain profitable expenditure in other departments, if not even increase it.
Those who complain of the £72,000,000 that we have been spending out of rates and taxes upon education are apt to forget the enormous bill which we should have to pay for the moral and physical invalids that a lack of education entails, and that it is only through the medium of education, as the Seconder of the Motion said, that we can possibly expect to compete in the great industrial world struggle. I am of one mind with hon. Members opposite on the subject of economy, but I beg them to join with me in being reasonable. On the subject of the school-leaving age, we have in this Report an allusion to what the raising of the school-leaving age would entail. They refer to the fact that provision would have to be made for half a million new scholars, which I should think is a very modest computation, and that 15,000 more teachers of a particular type would be required, to say nothing of accommodation in the form of school buildings. When we discuss this matter, moreover, we must remember that it is not only a question of money; it is a question of time. You cannot in a night produce 15,000 teachers of a particular type.
Let me tell the House why I consider the Report so much more in conformity with the realities of our situation than the suggestion of an indefinite multiplication of secondary school places. Throughout their deliberations, the
motive which actuated the members of the Committee in forming the curricula for what are going to be called eventually modern and senior schools, was that due regard should be paid to the capacities of the pupils and to local environment, that the course of instruction should be brought into relation with the facts of everyday life, and that it should contain large opportunities for practical work.
Our efforts in secondary education have not been uniformly successful, for a reason which has not yet been touched upon. There is a sentence in the Report in which it is said that a humane or liberal education is not one given through books alone, and when I first read that sentence, I thought it was going to lead to a conclusion different from that to which it actually did lead. There is another form of training which is just as essential for the pupil who desires to benefit by secondary education, if he is not to be disillusioned and disappointed in the result, and it is just that form of training which the abominable conditions of the home life in which many of our best brains have to struggle in their early careers do not admit of. Many a young man from such a home has gained scholarships, and has had the character, the intellect, and all the necessary equipment to pursue those vocations to which secondary education leads, but has failed finally in his expectations. There are some, it is true, who surmount all difficulties, and succeed in shaking themselves free from the shackles forged in their early life, but they are the exceptions rather than the rule. You may talk of equality of opportunity in education, but how on earth can you ever have equality of opportunity in education, however wide you throw open the doors of post-primary education, when a vast number of our young men who seek the advantages which these schools provide will carry upon them all their lives the marks of early neglect, the ineradicable and ineffacable evidences of their early environment? You will never make satisfactory progress towards your ideals until that problem is solved. The Minister of Health holds the key to its solution rather than the Minister of Education.
With this reservation, however, I would conclude by saying that, in the words of our Amendment,
The general trend of the Report of the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education on the education of the adolescent is in accordance with the policy of His Majesty's Government.
If we work on those lines, I believe we shall attain the great ideal of equal opportunities in education. It is education that is going to break down the barriers of class prejudice, class hatred and class war, far more effectively than any amount of pious platform resolutions. That is by no means the least of the reasons why I advocase a progressive programme of education. I envy those authorities whose business it will be in the fulness of time bring to fruition the recommendations of this Report, not only because the process will be fraught with a very lively and a very human interest, but because they will have the satisfaction of carrying out a scheme of reorganisation calculated to serve the very best interests of the rising generation.

Mr. COVE: I understand that a number of hon. Members want to say a word or two in this Debate, and, therefore, I shall confine myself to one main point. I hardly know whether I should congratulate the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment on their ingenuity, on their innocence, or on their party loyalty, because I find that in the Amendment they say that
The general trend of the Report of the Consultative Committee of the Board of Education on the education of the adolescent is in accordance with the policy of His Majesty's Government.
I want to say quite emphatically and definitely that the policy of His Majesty's Government as pronounced by the President of the Board of Education is not in accordance with the report of the consultative Committee. While the Seconder has quoted sentences from the Report, I observe that he was very careful not to quote the recommendations of the Report, and it is in the recommendations that we find the essentials of what they have to say as far as educational policy is concerned.

Mr. CADOGAN rose—

Mr. COVE: Wail, until I have finished my remarks.

Mr. CADOGAN: On a point of Order. The hon. Member says I have not quoted a summary of the conclusions
and recommendations. Surely I have a right on a point of Order to say that I have, chine so.

Mr. COVE: I will give way to that if the hon. Member desires it, and he can take some consolation from it. I will put it this way, if it will please him, and I ask him to contradict this, that he has not quoted the essential recommendation of the Committee's Report, the recommendation upon which the whole structure of its recommendations is built. The Minister knows it, because he has referred to it in a letter he issued to the Chairman of the consultative Committee. It is found on page 178, paragraph 21—
It is desirable that legislation should be passed fixing the age of 15 years as that up to which attendance at school will become obligatory.
That is the essential recommendation of the Report, and unless you get legislation making it obligatory for children to attend school up to the age of 15, practically all the superstructure that the Report. recommends will be of no avail at all. [Interruption.] I have read quite fairly. The period of five years is given as the length of time in order that the required number of teachers may be obtained, and the buildings found, but the essential thing is that now authorities want to know that it is going to be obligatory upon them to raise the school age to 15. Now, says the Amendment, the policy of His Majesty's Government is in line with this Report. Is it? I turn to the letter issued by the President of the Board of Education. He took the very first opportunity to tell local education authorities that this policy of making it obligatory upon them to raise the school age was not going to be the policy of His Majesty's Government, and in that respect, therefore, the policy of the Government differs essentially, fundamentally and vitally from the recommendations of the consultative Committee. Let us see what the President of the Board says. I think this is the acid test of the Motion, the raising of the school age. That is why we have compromised on the age. We on this side believe the age should be 16. We believe there should be a whole sweep of secondary schools with the same conditions that now obtain, but we say, here is a Committee composed of all shades of opinion. There are friends of my own on that Committee of the same political
colour as myself. There are members of the Committee who are of opposite political opinions to myself. They met together to consider this problem and as a joint Committee they said the essential thing is to raise the school age. Therefore we are being practical by saying, "Let us adopt this unanimous Report and put it into immediate legislative effect." What does the President of the Beard of Education say?
The Board will not in present circumstances ask Parliament to add to their existing statutory duties in such a way as to disturb the progress of development, and this assurance is one that I feel T ought to give without delay.
There you have the policy of the Government. They are not going to make it obligatory. They are not going to bring legislation in to raise the school age They are going to leave it to the voluntary initiative of local authorities up and down the country to take advantage of the provision in the 1921 Act. That means that, as far as anyone can foresee, we shall not have the compulsory raising of the school age. Local authorities up and down the country say, "It is unfair in this town A that we should compel children to attend school till 15. when in the very immediate town of B children are able to leave school at the age of 14. That would be an unfair competition as between the children of one area and the children of another:' As a matter of fact, I think London Members will agree with me that it was the voluntary nature of the continuation schools, merely applied to the London area, that broke the continuation schools down. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is quite right! "]It is the voluntary operation, one authority here, and another there providing continuation schools and raising the school age which will cause a complete breakdown. You could only do this then in one way, and that is by a national obligation that children in all areas, under all authorities, should attend school till the age of 15. Therefore, anyone who votes for this Amendment votes against the vital principle of the consultative Committee. The seconder said that in theory and in principle he is with us. We invite him to be with us in practice. We invite hon. Members opposite to put the pious aspirations we have heard into practical effect. Let us have the raising of the
school age, with maintenance grants. If hon. Members opposite will help us to raise wages, instead of a policy of lower wages and longer hours, that would help us to meet the economic situation.
My final ward is this. It is not the educationist's plea to raise the school age now. It has become something far bigger than that. It is not people like myself, who have been directly associated with education, who are making this plea now. It is not being urged merely for the sake of the individual child. It is not being urged merely for the development of the education system. It is being urged as an essential, social and economic policy that this country ought to adopt. As far back as 1909 the Royal Commission on the Poor Law said, "Raise the school age." I believe the Majority and the Minority Report said that. There were Committees during the War that considered this problem. They said, "Raise the school age." We have had two or three Committees sitting now on education and industry, and in every one of them you find a reference to the raising of the school age. I will quote one, because on this Committee I do not think there was a single practicing educationist. As a matter of fact, I believe the President of the Board of Education received some criticism from educationists because he did not put them on the Committee with his colleague the Minister of Labour. I believe he took the attitude, "Let us have a Committee of business men. Let us have a Committee of men directly associated with industry."
Do not let us have any suspicions that there are educationists on this body who are getting their own way with these people. What do they say:
While, as a Committee, owing to the terms of reference, we are unable to express any opinion on the matter, we feel that we cannot afford to let this opportunity pass without emphasising our strong personal opinion that the extension of compulsory education, either whole time or part time, would be in the interests of the boys and girls themselves and of the country as a whole.
Why? Quite honestly, I cannot understand the madness of pouring into industry about 500,000 children every year when they cannot be absorbed in in-
dustry. They are not absorbed, either as children or as adults, and in this enlightened State of ours, which exists mainly under Tory and Liberal Governments, we find children from 14 to 16 years with no provision for them of any kind whatever. Neither are they insured, nor is there any educational provision for them. They are left alone, as one hon. Member said, orphans of the industrial storm. Tens of thousands from 16 to 18 years—we cannot find their number—are being demoralised mentally and physically every day of their unemployed lives. Yet we do nothing for them. It is vitally essential, in the interests of the country from an economic point of view, that these children should be kept in school when industry cannot absorb them. Unless the President of the Board of Education can get up tonight and say, "We will adopt Recommendation 21 on page 178 to raise the school age compulsorily," he will not lead his party into the Lobby in favour of this consultative committee's report. That is the very essential of it. Merely to stick on a year haphazard, as the Report says, with children going on, somehow or another, for another year longer, is obviously a very different thing from the State saying that, at the age of 11 plus, there is a distinct break, and the psychology of the children, their physical and mental development, demand that we should begin at that age to investigate a new system of education. The Report says,
Call that secondary; it does not mean a merely literary education.
It says that the problem is not elimination, at the age of 12, of those not fitted to receive further education. The problem is not one of selection. It is not one of finding out who are fitted. The Report says that all normal children are fitted to receive a further education at the age of 11 plus. The problem then, is not one of elimination or selection, it is one, the Report says, of variation.
How can you find a school that will develop the peculiar capacities of the particular child? Some children may not be able to write an essay or to turn out good literary work; but they may be able to work with their hands and fingers, and may have a practical bent. The Report says: "Let us develop these schools from the age of 11 plus under a. secondary system, co-ordinated with
the elementary system, not a parallelism at all, but an organic, natural development, arising from 11 plus, with variety schools, so that a child who cannot succeed in a literary way will be able to succeed in a practical way." The Report says that one of the root causes of unemployment in this country is specialisation. Industry offers no variety of occupation. The Committeee on Education and Industry says, further, that we must cure this specialisation and give resilliancy of aptitude to our children so that they may be able to adapt themselves to new methods of industry, to meet new circumstances as they arise, and have the natural resilliency of mind to meet the new organisations necessary in industry. The only way you can do that is outside the factory walls, in the schools by developing in a practical way the variety of type, in order that the children may have such a training ground as will give them the best chance of rendering their little tribute of service to the nation as a whole.

10.0 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR: I must say that I do not quite understand why our side of the House has brought in this Amendment. I want to know if the President is going to adopt the finding of this Committee. I do not ask him to put it in at once, but I want to know if he is going to put it in. We have had two Committees set up lately to deal with juveniles—the Hadow and the Malcolm Committees—both of which have advocated the raising of the school age. That is a thing that some people interested in children feel desperately keen about. Those reports have shown, not only from the educational but also from the industrial and moral points of view, that that is absolutely necessary. The Mover of the Amendment said that we must make haste slowly. You cannot make haste slowly with children. Time goes on in the child's life, and, when you have passed it over, it is gone for ever. I do not like that language about making haste slowly. We have made haste slowly too long in this matter, and I want a definite lead to-night from the President.
The Seconder of the Resolution spoke of the wonderful speeches which the President made two years ago. I agree as to that, but since then he has come up against the stern and vilely Chancellor
of the Exchequer, who has not got the vision of the President. I am afraid that the President may be a little too easily pressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not only for the good of his own soul but for the good of the children of the country. I am sorry to have to say this, but there have been so many circulars within the last year that, even if they were called in, they make many of us, who are desperately keen on education, very uneasy. The President knows, and we all know, that the Hadow Report is one of the most complete that has ever been published in the history of education in England. It is so complete that many of us, although we have tried to read and study it, have had to go through it two or three times to take it in. Even then, I could not take some of it in, as I have not had the advantage of a higher education.

Lord E. PERCY: Did you drop it altogether?

Viscountess ASTOR: I want to begin with it. We all know that the raising of the school age will take a long time, but we are going to do it. The right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Trevelyan) would have liked to have raised the school age when he was in office. It was not practicable at the moment, but it should be made practicable in five years time, and if we want it we must begin now. When we had this question of juvenile unemployment before us in 1919, we set up juvenile unemployment centres. Then the economy axe came along and cut them down from 150 to three—just the same type of mind that wants to economise on education now. But they found that was not practical, and they have had to open them again at great expense and with much less efficiency. The only practical thing for this Government, or any Government to do is to face up to this question of juvenile unemployment, and when they do that, they will find that they have the Report of two Committees in favour of raising the school age. I am interested in the raising of the school age, not only from the educational point of view, but also from the moral point of view. When I hear hon. Members say, "It is all right, put them into industry at 14," it must be remembered that they cannot easily get into industry at 14, and even if they do, they are turned out at
the age of 16 and go on the unemployment list. The Malcolm Report has shown the quick way in which children deteriorate between 14 and 16 if they have no work.
But the real point is on the moral side, and that is what alarms me. Even if you cannot get complete education, and you will not, do let us try within the next five years to keep the children under supervision, as it were, and to keep some hold over them until we can put the whole of the Report into operation. I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) that 16 should be the compulsory school-leaving age. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not 21?"] I think that even 21 would be a splendid age, and I should like to see 21 for everyone's sons. But that is not the matter we are discussing now. The Mover of the Amendment said that we were getting on very well with the reduction in the size of classes, but we have still 20,000 classes with more than 50 children in each class under one teacher, and yet we are economising on higher education. We have economised to the extent of £70,000 in regard to higher education.

Lord E. PERCY: That is not the case.

Viscountess ASTOR: I am very glad to hear it. I do not blame the President of the Board of Education in regard to economy, but I blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is nobody more able than the Noble Lady, who works with the President of the Board of Education. I only wish she had the last say about. education. Some of us are really terrified. We have seen this economy tried before, and we have paid for it well when we have had to go to the country. You cannot economise on education, and no matter what the President of the Board of Education says, there is this feeling abroad. We arc up against the same class of mind that tried to economise in 1919. Unless I can get a reassurance that the Report will be adopted as soon as possible, and that the Government will go in for a policy of raising the school age in five years' time, much as I regret it, I shall have to vote with hon. Members on the other side of the House, and I think that would be a kindness to the Board of Education,
because, if some of us do that, we shall show the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we are in desperate earnest about the education of the children of the country.

Lord E. PERCY: I think the first thing that the House will expect me to do will be to express my thanks to the Consultative Committee for its Report. It is a most valuable Report, and it is going to be of the utmost assistance to the Board and to local authorities. The second thing I think the House would wish me to do is to express my sympathy with the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) and the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson) in the position in which they have been put. I am sure that no one who has listened to them can have failed to see what has happened. The hon. Member for Wednesbury began his speech with a quarter of an hour of great fervour and evident sincerity, about the whole question of secondary schools properly so-called, about free places and the necessity for increased maintenance allowances and so on, and he ended up his speech with a peroration of the utmost sincerity on the same subject. But in between there was sandwiched a. rapid survey of this Report, of which he obviously knew so little and had never seen before, that he had to read every word very hurriedly, and then the hon. Gentleman the Member for Houghton-le-Spring made another speech, the same sort of speech that we have beard before and that we are always glad to hear from him in this House, on the problem of secondary education in Durham and the problem of pert-time education in Durham, expressly excluded from the Report, and we heard practically no word of the Report of the Committee itself. We all know what has happened. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury wanted to move a Motion on secondary schools. He had this Motion drawn up and foisted on him by the leaders of his party or by hon. Gentlemen like the hon. Member for Welling-borough (Mr. Cove), who are out for propaganda.

Mr. COVE: Thank you, that is cheap.

Mr. PALING: Get on with your business.

Lord E. PERCY: There was foisted on him a Motion which those hon. Gentlemen knew nothing about and cared nothing about; a subject which they had never got up and the consequence is that the House has been deprived of what would have been a very interesting Debate on a real Private Member's Motion on the real subject which interested private members.
The Motion calls upon the Government to take at once all the legislative and administrative action necessary to secure a system of post-primary education on the lines recommended by this Committee. Do the hon. Members who move that really mean what they say? The hon. Member for Wednesbury referred to a Motion in this House a year ago on the same general subject of secondary education. He said it was a more drastic Motion. Will he consult—and I appeal to him, as I can confidently appeal to him—the speech that I made on that occasion and the warning that I gave to hon. Members, not to lead people outside to believe that they said more than they really meant, and, having read my words, I would ask him to consider whether it would be honest of him to make any complaint with regard to my attitude on that occasion compared to my attitude to-night.
In the face of that warning, let us see what we are asked to pass. The hon. Member for Wednesbury asked us—blindly, I know—to pass a Motion whereby Wednesbury would be abolished as an independent local education authority. Does he mean that? Is that the policy of the party opposite? I call for a reply. It is not a question of what I have done, but what the Report says should be done. [Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order.

Lord E. PERCY: As those questions have not been answered, I will assume that lion, Members did not mean it. Take the question of central schools. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring has told us over and over again in this House that he is opposed to central schools, that he does not like central schools, and that he wants secondary schools or, as they are called in the Report, grammar schools. I gather that he is still of that opinion.

Mr. RICHARDSON: I am.

Lord E. PERCY: How can the hon. Member reconcile that with this Report?

Mr. RICHARDSON: Because it is a big step forward.

Lord E. PERCY: It is a big step forward to be taken by the methods which I have always advocated, which we on this side have always advocated, and which many hon. Members opposite have advocated—it is not a party question—namely, the establishment of central schools as distinguished from grammar schools, as distinguished from those higher "tops" in which the hon. Member's own educational authority indulges. Does he mean that I am to take administrative action. [Interruption.] Really, hon. Members must allow me to put my point. Does the hon. Member mean that he is now prepared to see central schools set up in Durham and in similar areas? I will tell him why I ask that question; it is because, up to now, one of the great difficulties we have had in our educational advance has been that in mining areas especially, the mining villagers say, "We will have nothing to do with your central schools; we want secondary schools,"

Mr. RICHARDSON: The Noble Lord has asked me for a reply. He knows as well as I do that central schools in a county area are an absolute impossibility. We have been driven to our higher "tops" because of the present system. I admit that it has done good. I do not decry the education that has been given, but I want something more, and the only thing for a county area is a primary school, with secondary education to follow.

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member is mistaken. There are any number of central schools in any number of counties, and they are being set up every day. It is not a fact that they are impracticable in a county. If he will excuse me for saying so, he has not studied this Report.

Mr. COVE: I have.

Lord E. PERCY: I am coming to the hon. Member. There are, of course, other questions. There is the question of a universal system of leaving examination. Is that the policy of hon. Members opposite? Have they considered the whole question of leaving examinations for all children from 14 and over? Do
they desire that immediate administrative steps should be taken in that direction? Hon. Members opposite have no opinions on that subject, I fear, or on any subject mentioned in the Report. Naturally, they have not had an opportunity of making up their minds on these subjects. Let me refer to the words of this Report. This is a Report which proposes a general line of advance. It says that progress must be tentative and experimental. It proposes a line of advance in many directions. No one who reads the recommendations believes for one moment that all the recommendations are to be carried out at once. That is not the proposal of the Report. This Motion bears no relation whatever to the Report. It has been put down by hon. Members who really had not had time to study the Report. In the whole of this Debate hardly any part of the Report has been referred to. The only part that has been specifically mentioned has been the question of the raising of the school age. To that I am coming.
Before I do so, may I say to the hon. Member for Wednesbury, in regard to that portion of his speech in which he referred to matters in which he was really interested, that on those points I think we can satisfy him that very real advance is being made. He quoted a figure for the free places in secondary schools. That figure of 142,000 odd at any rate is an advance of 8,000 on the total of two years ago. We have made that progress. In a speech the other day I gave some figures, which perhaps the House will allow me to read, because I am not sure that they were published. The effect of our progress is this, that whereas in 1919 to 1920 one pupil in 23 of the appropriate age in our public elementary schools secured a free place, in 1930, with our present rate of progress, the figure will be one in 13. That indicates that we are making very substantial advance. So, with the remark of my Noble Friend the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) about the general policy of economy. I address myself to her and to the Mover and Seconder of the Motion and all hon. Members opposite who are really anxious about educational progress, and who want to tell the people of this country what is actually being done. If they look at the figures they will know that there
is no question of this Government having placed economy first and having restricted the development of education.
I have given over and over again in public figures which, of course, are not usually quoted in the periodical Press which hon. Gentleman opposite are accustomed to read, but still are available in other papers. They will know from those figures what the facts really are. Take, for instance, a most important indication of the subject we are discussing—how fast we are getting on with the developing of the schools to take these children. Look at the figures of capital expenditure in the last three years. In 1924–25, during half of which right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office, the capital expenditure approved by the Board of Education was just over £4,500,000, and that was greatly above the year before. In 1925–26 it was £6,015,000. This year with six weeks of the year still to run, and in spite of the holding up of building and so on during our industrial troubles, it is already £4,825,000. These are expenditures before the three-year programme of the local education authorities has begun. You have in those programmes a greater rate of capital expenditure. You have provision in those programmes for 50,000 new secondary school places—a very considerable part in the provision of secondary education—and large and very important extensions in the accommodation in central schools, senior schools, and so on, dealing with the older children. You have in those programmes, I think I may say, provision for solving by 1930, generally speaking, the whole problem of defective school premises so far as provided schools are concerned.
There is no doubt about our programme and all the talk about these restrictions on expenditure which prevent development is really very far from the truth. That progress, of which there is no doubt, is quite a sufficient answer to any allegations about the Minister's policy of economy. I want to come to the question of the raising of the school age. We are all agreed that the great problem before us in education—our great task in education—is to increase school life and increase it as soon as possible. The deplorable thing at the present moment is that we have not been able hitherto to provide buildings for
advanced instruction fast enough to meet the existing demand, the voluntary demand, of children to stay on beyond the age of 14. We are catching up with that demand. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) knows that perfectly well. Her authority at Plymouth wants to raise the age to 15 but the committee estimated that it would take eight years to deal with the whole of their elementary school problems in order to meet the needs of these children for advanced instruction. That is our problem, that is our task and that is our duty and on that, all the money which the country can spare should be concentrated. There are two things I will not do. I will not throw this question of the compulsory raising of the school age at the local authorities in such a way as would lead them to scrap the whole of the programmes which they have at present providing for these 50,000 new secondary school places. Do hon. Members think that an authority which has made up its mind to provide 500 new secondary school places by 1930 and which by 1930 or 1931 will be incurring the full expenditure consequent on that new provision, whatever it may be—

Mr. COVE: There is a great drop in the numbers attending the schools.

Lord E. PERCY: The secondary schools?

Mr. COVE: All schools.

Lord E. PERCY: No, there is not There is an increase in the number attending the secondary schools. The hon. Member for Wellingborough must have some sort of accuracy in his remarks. We have a net increase in the number attending the secondary schools in the country as a whole. Does anybody suppose that an authority which is willing to incur that expenditure to which I have referred will be encouraged to do so by being told, "In the very year when the full commitment accrues I am going to force you to look after 5,000 extra children between the ages of 14 and 15"? Of course, what the authorities would do would be to say: "If I am going to have to meet this, I will provide the additional elementary school accommodation and scrap the secondary school accommodation that I had planned." Having got your programmes up to this point, you must let
the local authorities carry on with them, or you will never get any of the real work done. Any man on the other side who has had practical experience of administration will know that.
The second thing I will not do is this: I will not compel a lot of children to come into the schools before I have made proper provision for their education. Nothing has done more harm to education in the last five or six years, in the last 10 years, than the impression that parents got after the school age was raised to 14 plus that their children were marking time in the upper standards of the schools. It did more harm to education than anything else, and the worst harm you could do to education now would be to force parents to send their children to the schools for another year without having first made adequate preparation for their advanced education. This is not a new policy. It is the policy of the right hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Trevelyan). I am really quoting from what he said in his Circular No. 1340, where he said:
That issue (of the raising of the school age) involves on the one hand careful examination of the capacity of the schools.… to do justice to the older pupils, and of the time required to increase their capacity. On the other hand, special regard must be had to that element in public opinion which is represented by the views of the parents, and to the degree in which their willing co-operation can be obtained in rendering such an advance fruitful.
He goes on to say:
The problem of universally raising the school leaving age must be considered in its educational, social, and economic aspects, and in dealing with it the Board naturally look to the Local Education Authorities for information and advice.
And he went on to say that the Board would be gratified if the authorities were able to encourage the Board to take a more optimistic view as to the practicability of advance.

Mr. TREVELYAN: What year was that?

Lord E. PERCY: This was 1924, the year in which the right hon. Gentleman laid down in the House of Commons a continuous policy for a decade, which I believe is ten years. Those were the right hon. Gentleman's opinions then, and I have no doubt they are his opinions now, that anything of this kind has to be done in consultation with the local autho-
rities and taking into consideration the views of the parents and public opinion among the parents, and your capacity to meet the needs of the parents in your provision in the schools. My view is this, and I believe it is the view of the local authorities. We need to go ahead, and are going ahead, with the programmes. We need to go ahead in providing the necessary accommodation to deal with these four years from 11 to 15. We are doing that in the programmes, and when we have proceeded further with that, it will be time enough to decide whether we have reached the point where it is fair and just, having regard to the views of parents and to our provision for the children, to introduce compulsion.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: May I ask, with the present development of policy, when the noble Lord expects that time will be reached when it will be practicable to say: "Five years hence compulsion will be introduced"?

Lord E. PERCY: I do not think it is possible to say at the present moment in each case when that time will be reached. Local authorities' programmes need to get very much further on than at the present moment before we can see our way to do that. My last word will be this. I have always said, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, that I believe that this country owes a great debt of gratitude to him for having swept away former paper restrictions. That was his great achievement. But, during the short time he was in office, he was naturally not able to agree with the local authorities generally on any scheme of advance. He often complained that he could not get local authorities to move. Since that time, largely by reason of the effiuxion of time, we have agreements with local authorities. We have got an organised programme. We have got each local authority with a definite programme. We must suit our expressions of opinion to that situation. Passing vague Motions of this kind, which are really not well considered, which every hon. Member opposite does not mean interpreted literally, when he does not know whether he wants to do this or that with these recommendations—passing vague Resolutions of this kind is enough to break the heart of any administrator who is trying
to get on with his job. The meaning of this Amendment is that we intend trying to get on with our job, because we know the accomplishment of that job on the lines of that Report is an essential if we are ever going to get any increase of school life, and we prefer to get on with our job rather than pass vague Resolutions intending to say more than we really mean, and to mislead and to furnish subjects for propaganda, and not for progress.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Those of us who were here at the beginning of this Debate were, perhaps, a little puzzled at the attitude of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. He was specially anxious to tell us he was not hostile to our attitude. He kept on saying that he agreed with us, and that this Report contained the Prime Minister's election address, but he observed that we did not propose in the Resolution moved from this side of the House to consult the local education authorities, and that lie preferred our hastening slowly to what, I suppose, he regarded as our hastening quickly. But everyone who was listening to him, or who was listening to the Seconder, whose chief objection was that we wanted to do things at once, instead of not doing things steadily, as he quoted from the Report—everyone listening to that felt that there was practically no difference between those hon. Gentlemen and my hon. Friends who moved and seconded the Mo non, and anyone listening would have been rather puzzled to know why the Amendment should have been moved, and still more puzzled when the only other speech from the Conservative side was strongly in favour of the original Motion. The fact is, we all protest we arc in favour of this Report. Then why cannot we pass a Resolution saying we are in favour of it and that we wish the Government to put it into operation at once? I am afraid the author of the difficulty is the right hon. Gentleman. I was very anxious that my hon. Friends should, if possible, get agreement on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman has a very strongly developed faculty for disintegrating political co-operation. Here is a new Report. It has the very high authority of a large number of educationalists of all political complexions
behind it. It is practically a unanimous Report. It is not a violent Report, but a cautious one. It is everything a progressive party and a conservative party can support. Why should not we pass a Resolution in favour of it?
The right hon. Gentleman loftily tells my friends they have not had time to make up their minds, that they have not read the Report. Of all queer censures I think that is the queerest—after the action of the right hon. Gentleman himself. The truth is this Amendment has been put down because the right hon. Gentleman, when this Report came out, at once put himself into such a position that he could not accept it. He at once wrote a letter in which he said that he had not had time to study the report but in which he announced that the Conservative Government would not raise the school age to 15. I should not have been surprised had the Conservative Government said they were going to take time to consider the matter, but that at any rate they were going to read the Report; but by saying straight out, "We are not going to do one of the things which this Report recommends" he put himself in a false position, and it became Parliamentarily necessary for one of those Amendments, with the origin of which we are all familiar, to be moved from the Back Benches. It is very unfortunate, too, that at this juncture this question of raising the school age cannot be discussed in a favourable atmosphere. This Report is a cautious report. It does not propose to raise the school age at once. The right hon. Gentleman apparently wanted to rope me in as his supporter against raising the school age because I had said in 1924 that it was not a thing which could be considered at once for the whole country, but that it was a thing we had to consider. The proposal which we have before us is not that we should raise the school age next year. The Committee's proposal is:
It is desirable that legislation should be passed fixing the age of 15 years as that up to which attendance at school will become obligatory after the lapse of five years from the date of this Report—
that is to say, at the beginning of the school year 1932. That is the proposal. That is what the country is asked to con-
sider. It is not asked to raise the school age at once, but after giving the local authorities plenty of time to consider it and build new schools, and, plenty of time to make preparations for its coming into operation. I think that disposes entirely of the main obstacle which the right hon. Gentleman put forward that they would not have time to prepare for this great change.
Ought not the House and the country to be considering this question seriously at the present time. There is a, very strong growing opinion in favour of raising the school age. We all know the difficulties conected with it. We all know than there is a large Conservative opinion represented by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor), and she does not speak alone on this question, because there is a large Conservative opinion in favour of this proposal on the local education authorities of this country. Sir Percy Jackson, the Chairman of the County Councils' Association, is strongly in favour of it. The National Union of Teachers is also in favour of it, and public opinion is growing rapidly in that direction. Therefore I think it is a most unfortunate thing for the President of the Board of Education to take up a line directly contrary to the general trend of educational opinion.
But there is another reason which ought to be pressing upon our attention. At the present time we are going through a period of severe unemployment. There are 1,500,000 unemployed, and this state of things has existed for the last four years. During those four years we have put out into the labour market 500,000 children every year at 14 years of age. Do they not increase unemployment? It is perfectly true that a child coming into the labour market at 14 does not directly drive out the man who is unemployed at 40, but the child that gets work at 14 drives out some young people at the age of 16 or 18, and they in turn drive out the older adults. If we were to spend money during the next five years in preparing the schools and the teachers for this development, if we were to do what I and my friends are pressing more and more we ought to do, namely, to find maintenance grants on a liberal scale by the State to families who are keeping
their children at school at 14 years of age; if we did all that and spent all the millions required for that purpose we should be saving some millions now spent in Poor Law Relief and unemployment benefit. The President of the Board of Education may think I am exaggerating, but I am prepared to say that the saving in poor relief and unemployment benefit—of course, I do not say it would amount to all that we might happen to spend—at the other end by getting those children into school would be very considerable. We should be making a great saving on poor relief and unemployment benefit—one of the least productive kinds of expenditure which this country bears and that we should be substituting for it, even if substituting a larger expenditure—an expenditure which would practically all be of real value to the country.

Lord E. PERCY: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me for a moment, I did not wish to be discourteous. What was in my mind was this. Does he ever compare the entry into industry and the total relief to industry by keeping boys and girls in schools from 14 to 15 years with the amount of the normal retirements from industry at the age of, say, 60?

Mr. TREVELYAN: Of course, the thing cannot be clearly or accurately estimated. I have said so. Who pretends that it can. But does anybody pretend that if the 300,000 children who actually get work when they leave school at 14 did not go into the labour market, there would be as much unemployment as there is? As a matter of fact this change of raising the school age is educationally, economically and socially one of the biggest things which we can contemplate in the near future and there is no reason why we should not contemplate it except one thing, that it is going to cost money, and nobody denies that. I am bound to say I am afraid that is the motive of the right hon. Gentleman in his opposition to this proposal.
These proposals if carried out mean a considerable increase in the expenditure on secondary education. I agree that any advance of that sort which implies any large number of new secondary schools or indeed of any other schools
seems to be incompatible with the present policy of the right hon. Gentleman, and it would, I agree, be difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to accept this proposal of ours at the very moment that he issues Circular 1388. It is too early to estimate the full effect of that Circular. We have not had time to study its likely effects, but it has a close relation to secondary education. It fixes the standard of increased secondary expenditure at £25 per pupil extra in the year 1927–28 over 1924–25, and as far as those of us who have studied that Circular can make out, it practically prevents the erection of new secondary schools in the near future.
I have got the figures from one county which I will give to the right hon. Gentleman and he can check them if he does not think they are correct. They come from the chairman of the responsible authority. They have taken out the figures in order to show what the effect on the secondary education budget will be, and they find that the increase, at £25 per place—the increase which they have arranged for this year, and which is actually taking place—the permitted increase will be 750 places at £25 per place, which would be £18,750 permitted to the local authority. They find, however, that, taking the actual number of fresh places which they are expecting to have this year, they would, under the right hon. Gentleman's new proposals, be £5,000 out of pocket. I have given him the figures, but the point is this: The right hon. Gentleman is pursuing a policy of economy, issuing circular after circular in which he is inculcating economy, showing new methods by which economy is to be required of the local authorities—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—and that policy is incompatible with the policy of the Hadow Report, because the Hadow Report implies an immediate and vigorous development of secondary and advanced education, and that is impossible without a change of the kind of policy pursued by the right hon. Gentleman now.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 128.

Division No. 8.]
AYES.
[10.59 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Rose, Frank H.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Groves, T.
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, T. W.
Scurr. John


Astor, Viscountess
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Sexton James


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston
Hardie, George D.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, Walter
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, A.
Hayes, John Henry
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bondfield, Margaret
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smillie, Robert


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromfield, William
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Rennie (Penisione)


Bromley, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snell, Harry


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stephen, Campbell


Clowes, S.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sullivan, J.


Compton, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawrence, Susan
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lee, F.
Townend, A. E.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lindley, F. W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dennison, R.
Lowth, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maxton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondde)


England, Colonel A.
Morris, R. H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Fenby, T. D,
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Forrest, W.
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gardner, J. P.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Gibbins, Joseph
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gillett, George M.
Purcell, A. A.



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Riley, Ben
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.


Greenall, T.
Robinson. W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fraser, Captain Ian
Margesson, Captain D.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Mason, Lieut.-Cot. Glyn K.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'i)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon B. M.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Atholl, Duchess of
Goff, Sir Park
Nelson, Sir Frank


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gower, Sir Robert
Nuttall, Ellis


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Grant, Sir J. A.
Penny, Frederick George


Bethel, A.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Blundell, F. N.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pilcher, G.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Raine, W.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Briscoe, Richard George
Harland, A.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hartington, Marquess of
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hawke, John Anthony
Ropner, Major L.


Campbell, E. T.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rye, F. G.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Salmon, Major I.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Sandeman, A, Stewart


Clayton, G. C.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cope, Major William
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jacob, A. E.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F. (Will'sden, E.)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Storry-Deans, R.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lamb, J. Q.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lougher, L.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lumley, L. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lynn, Sir R, J.
Waddington, R.


Fielden, E. B.
Macintyre, Ian
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.




Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wilson, sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)



Wells, S. R.
Windsor Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Wise, Sir Fredric
Mr. Somerville and Mr. Cadogan.


Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Womersley, W. J.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

Mr. JAMES HUDSON rose—

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.